Thursday, September 06, 2007


When I was a kid the Christian Right used to swear that it would be happy with a moment of silence in our public schools.   Then they wanted student led prayer.  Then they wanted prayers led by teachers.

When I was a kid the Christian right used to swear that it was primarily interested in stopping abortion, contraption seldom coming into the discussion.   Then they wanted to eliminate certain kinds of contraception because they believed those forms of contraception destroyed life at the moment of conception.  Now the truth has finally come out.  They want to eliminate contraception all together and force their sexual mores onto the entire population, namely celibate lifestyles until marriage.

This, of course is just another stab at an establishment of religion.  In a Christian Republic, or a theocracy if you will, the schools would be geared up to spread the Christian faith.  So of course they're going to take what they can get piece by incremental piece.  In a Fundamentalist Theocracy, gays and lesbians would become second class citizens--if not subjects of public execution--so of course the Fundamentalist have to begin by denying gays and lesbians employment, marriage, and adoption rights.  In a Fundamentalist theocracy women would be subservient to men, and to achieve that end the Fundamentalists want to take away a woman's right to control her own body and destiny.  They began with abortion.   They they expanded their demands to include certain forms of contraception.  Then they revealed their true colors, exclaimed that God wants us to live celibate lives until marriage, when in fact what they really mean, is "honey, back to the bad old days of knocked up, barefoot, and no control over your own body and destiny."   The fitly Fundamentalist bastards know that they can't effect an outright theocracy all at once because that really would violate the Constitution, so what they're trying to  impose the various beliefs of their Fundamentalist "Christianity" piecemeal on a nation of approximately 300 million people.   To which I ask, why should a maximum of 28 percent of the American people, of a particular group of one particular faith be allowed to impose ANY of its values on the nation as a whole?  
If they want to pray (some might say that they prey) let them do so in designated times and places as other extracurricular groups are required to do.  If they don't ant to use contraception they should get out their thermometers and hope to God the damned thing is properly calibrated.  If they want to be celibate they themselves know what is best for them and how they can best maintain their celibate lifestyles until marriage.  If they are offended by homosexuality they can stop snooping n what their gay or lesbian neighbors are doing and not engage in homosexual acts.   In other words, it's about time that these Pecksniffian  Puritans began to mind their own business and removed the motes from their own eyes.
Because I for one, am getting a little sick and tired of being told how to live, think, and behave by a vocal minority with the fanaticism of a Reverend Jim Jones and the collective IQ of a used condom. 

Saturday, August 18, 2007


The following post was composed by our team member Kelli. It is actually an interview with one of our former members who was forced to resign due to increasing health problems. That said it should banish the myth that George W. Bush is a modern day Franklin Roosevelt, a president whose legacy Bush, Cheney, and the authoritarian Neocons have been attempting to undermine since they usurped power in the election of 2000. Anyone with a basic understanding of World War II knows full well that George W. Bush is not an FDR. In fact, their are ways in which Bush and his cronies more closely resemble the enemies that we were trying to overcome during the 1930s and 1940s; specifically the forces of pirate capitalism at home and unrestrained totalitarianism abroad.

By Donatra (Kelli)
Edited by Praetorone

During the weeks and months leading up to my marriage, my then future husband told me that I would be marrying into a veritable united Nations and In many ways, he was right on center. My husband is part Irish and Puerto Rican, a former Catholic turned Buddhist. My oldest (half) brother-in-law is part Puerto Rican and Part Swedish, and is a very liberal member of the Unitarian Church, while my youngest (half) brother-in-law is part Puerto Rican and part Danish and describes himself as a progressive Christian. My father-in-law is part Irish, German, and Scottish, a former Presbyterian turned atheist. His wife, my husband's step mother, is part Dutch, Polish, and German, a former Jew turned Episcopalian. And her 87-year-old Uncle is a German-Dutch Jew who immigrated to this country with his parents in the year 1928, luckily missing the rise of Hitler and the nightmare years of the Third Reich.

This is a man whose body is slowly but certainly being crippled by rheumatoid arthritis and failing vision. that's a pity because this is also a man with degrees in both medicine and law, and who sees it as a civic duty to remain informed about what is happening in both, the country he adopted and in the rest of the world. And yet, despite increasing physical infirmities his mind is alert and his memory appears to be as sharp as ever. In may ways he and some of the middle aged members of our crew serve as our 'in house" historians and we are always grateful when Abe can offer his unique insight to some of our materials. Indeed, up until a few years ago, when a series of mini strokes began to affect his vision, he was a semi active member of our old blog, and if you want the honest to God truth, we rather miss him.

One of the benefits that comes from having elderly in-laws (my "great uncle-in-law" turned 87 earlier this year) is that he has actually experienced, lived through this wonderfully interesting and often times bizarre thing that we call history. This of course means that he has first hand information at his command that we don't have, the kind of information that comes from watching the march of history from a personal point of view, not from reading about events, places, and individuals in history books and biographies. As an eye witness to some of the watershed events of the 20th Century my Uncle-in-Law naturally has opinions about current events, and as an 87-year-old man whose family followed the rise of the Nazi regime throughout the late 1920s and 30s, he of course has an interesting take on those who would compare themselves to the great and near great figures of the past.

Nothing irritates my Uncle Abraham more than when members of the Bush Administration compare themselves to the members of the Roosevelt Administration.

"It's Ironic," Abraham told me. "On the one hand these people--and I use the term loosely--want us to think of them as modern Day FDRs, bravely leading America through another world conflict, but," he adds in a rolling German accent, "on the other hand they are attempting to dismantle everything that Roosevelt did to protect the lower and middle classes. They're trying to have it both ways and anyone with a serious background in history knows that they are playing fast and loose with the facts." In addition, Abe is distressed by the disingenuous rhetoric from the current Administration which attempts to equate the current war on terrorism with the tragedy that was the Second World War.

"I don't think people today understand just how serious things were back then," Abe offers. "By the early 1940s--1942 I believe--the world situation was grim. Very grim. Hitler, the Nazi war machine, and their Italian allies had conquered most of the European continent and were threatening to crush the Soviet Union." Then, from memory he began to list the European nations which had come under the domination of Italian and German Fascism. "Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia. and Greece. Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania, " he added, "were Axis occupied territories; Italy had swallowed up Libya." Continuing in a similar vein, Abe pointed out that by 1942 the German war machine had conquered the Ukraine and was poised to swallow up Moscow, Stalingrad, and the oil rich Caucuses. And then there was that matter of Italy's occupation of Libya." Or, as my husband has put it on previous occasions, the Mediterranean was little more than an Axis dominated lake.

The situation wasn't any better in the Pacific where by September 1941, Imperial Japan had consumed Korea, Manchuria, much of the Eastern Coast of China, French Indo China, Formosa, and Sakhalin Island. Moreover there were plans in the making to conquer Thailand, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, New Guinea, the Philippine Islands, the Solomon Islands, the Kurile Islands, etc. Chillingly, most of these objectives were obtained within a period of six months, including the sneak attack o Pearl harbor which quite literally destroyed the American presence in the Pacific Ocean. "Again," Abe offers. "Nobody realized how badly off the United States was during this time." Noting past influence by the isolationists in the form of the America First Movement, Abe informed me that in the mid 1930s America had the 18th largest military in the world. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had superior war machines and more war ready soldiers than the United States. "You have to remember," Abe said, "that the Isolationist movement fought President Roosevelt at almost every turn. They were determined to keep America out of another World War. The only problem was that this was the wrong war to avoid. But the Republicans were eager to score points against Roosevelt whenever they could and then, like now, they weren't afraid to engage in a little fear mongering. When I was a young man it was the fear of another conflict like the first World War. Today the Republicans use the fear of terrorism to smear their opponents. It's the same tactic played over and over again like a badly scratched phonograph record." When I asked Abe if the America First movement wasn't a broadly based movement that was composed of both, Democrats and Republicans, he responded by telling me that it was indeed a broadly based political movement, but that it was primarily a Republican led phenomenon.

"And I suspect that there was more than just a little Antisemitism mixed in there too. According to Abe, Antisemitism ran rampant in the years prior to the Second World War. Indeed, it wasn't really until the liberation of the Nazi death camps near the end of the war that Antisemitism became a dirty word. "There were people out there--at least i think they were people--who believed that Jews were in charge of the banks. There was a belief out there that we were a part of some secret society or maybe a conspiracy to control and dominate the United States, maybe even the world." During his youth Abe frequently heard the old cliches about Jewish people: That they were all rich, that they were dishonest in business transactions, that they had killed Christ, that they were vampires who wanted to drink the blood of Christian children. "Both the Catholic and Protestant churches had troubling theories about Jews," he remembers. "Much of the hatred towards Jews in those days came from Christian denominations who taught that Jews were tools of the devil. The Catholics and the Lutherans stand out as some of the most virulent, but other denominations were just as loathsome." Abe also remembers reading about and seeing photos of Nazi youth, American children who burned books in public squares, and who goose stepped to the antisemitic chant that was drifting out of central Europe during the prewar years. "They looked Iike and behaved like the Hitler youth," Abe said. "Like their counterparts in Germany and Austria, they would congregate at some public square, throw books on blazing bonfires, and sing the praises of Hitler and antisemitism. And it didn't help to have a national hero who was openly sympathetic to the German regime." When asked to specify, Abe informed me that Charles Lindbergh, a popular aviation hero of the era, had been a driving force in the isolationist America First movement, as well known for his antisemitism as for his aviation talents. "Lindbergh was no friend of the English or the French and he certainly wasn't a small d democrat. If you ask me I don't think he saw the conflict between Hitler and the western democracies as a fight between freedom and totalitarianism." This after all was a man (Lindbergh) who, had traveled to Germany and offered glowing reports about the rising Reich and German peoples love for their nation and Fuhrer. Lindbergh, like so many of the people in the America First movement, refused to recognize Hitler and the Nazi government for what it was. "As a matter of fact, I think he appreciated the regime, gave it what you kids call an 'official thumbs up.'"

So how does the current conflict differ from World War II? "The terrorists can do a lot of damage if they set their minds to it," said Abe. "But it isn't like World War II. It is not as if they can destroy an entire nation state. It is not a global conflict. We see pockets of conflict. An offensive here, and offensive there, but we do not have large armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers sweeping across continents trying to capture Berlin, or Paris or London. It's an entirely different situation. Entirely different."

So are there other differences? "Most certainly," Abe responded. According to Abe, the entire attitude is different. "No politician, no leader, not a Democrat or a Republican would have treated a returning Vet (during World War II) the way George W. Bush treats returning Veterans from Iraq. "That creature in the White House has no feelings for anyone but himself. He has this attitude that tells him volunteer soldiers are disposable. He cares as little about our returning Veterans as he does for anyone else. Your husband, and others, believe that the man is a sociopath. I don't have a problem with that argument, because I believe it to be true." In Abe's opinion Franklin Roosevelt had a watershed event in his life which made a huge difference in the way he treated people. "The rich people in this country viewed Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class. After he was struck with polio and lost the use of his legs, Mister Roosevelt developed an even deeper understanding for people." And by people Abe does not mean the members of the economic elite. He means the lower and middle classes. "Unlike Herr Bush," Abe continued, "Roosevelt developed a deeper compassion--genuine compassion for the middle and lower classes. Herr Bush, on the other hand, has yet to want for anything. The man suffered, that much is certain. He suffered when his little sister died of leukemia and his parents wouldn't allow him to mourn. But Bush never used that experience to develop genuine empathy, genuine sympathy. It may well be that he never could. Sincere empathy and compassion are alien concepts to this man." Bush, Abe believes. was probably born a psychopath or a sociopath. The manner in which he was raised didn't help the situation either. When a sociopath or a psychopath is constantly bailed out of the trouble that they so often cause for themselves, it only makes them more reckless and more dangerous. Bush has a long record of close calls, and a powerful clique of friends and family who have repeatedly pulled his chestnuts out of the fire. He has yet to face the consequences for his wrong doing, although I suspect--very strongly mind you--that this is about to change now that the rats are abandoning the sinking ship of state."

Unlike Roosevelt, Bush has yet to create a sense of the American people being "in it together." This isn't only true of the failed invasion of Iraq, but in his failure to demand any real sacrifice from the American people. "Look, Kelli, when I was a young man during World War II we rationed--don't laugh--rubber. When it became clear that America required rubber and that the Germans had learned how to make synthetic rubber, we realized that we had to do something until we had the ability to synthesize rubber right here at home." This Abe explains led to a number of unpopular steps by "that man in the white house." One of the most unpopular involved tires. In an effort to conserve rubber the Roosevelt Administration made it more difficult to buy a new set of tires. Ultimately this led to gas rationing. "The idea went something like this. We didn't have a gas shortage, but Roosevelt realized that if he made it harder to drive long distances there would be an automatic conservation of rubber." Other moves had already been taken with other products made out of rubber, but with the advent of gas rationing the people were not at all amused. "Roosevelt remedied the situation with one of his fireside chats. He simply went on the air, explained the situation, and promised that the government was actively promoting a synthetic rubber program." In addition to an explanation Roosevelt initiated a drive in which various rubber products (everything from the rubber in women's girdles, to rubber balls, rubber bands, and pet toys) were collected during rubber drives and shipped off for recycling, to be used in the war effort. "It made the American people feel as if they were doing something for the war effort." And more importantly it reduced opposition to gas rationing. "And there was an up side to the situation." And what an up side it was. traffic fatalities went down. People went to movies and learned to enjoy simpler, more personal and interactive forms of entertainment. "Instead of driving all over creation on weekend joy trips, we stayed at home, got to know our neighbors. We rediscovered that wonderful thing called conversation--something your generation should rediscover."

Rubber wasn't the only product that was rationed. Sugar was rationed. American housewives learned to use corn syrup and saccharine (yes it was around even then) as substitutes in their baking. Those same housewives also learned to cut back on eggs in their baking, they poured yellow dye into margarine so that our troops could use real butter. Nylon was another product which had to be rationed. To that end the one piece bathing suit disappeared and the two piece bathing suit was born. The hemlines on now unpleated skirts rose to above the knee. Even fat was recycled. "And then there were the coupon books," Abe chuckled. "As a part of the war time rationing families were given coupon books. You'd use thee coupons to buy food, clothing, shoes, you name it. If I remember correctly, you had to make the coupons last for a month. It was an inconvenience, but it certainly rationed all those important things that were needed by our troops." Revealing an obvious, but restrained anger, Abe then added, "that's a hell of a difference from THIS aschloch who sent our troops into battle without the proper equipment for an invasion."

And then there were the price caps and tax hikes. Unlike The Shrub, Roosevelt recognized the fact that America needed to properly fund the war, Bush has yet to so much as ask the American people to make a significant sacrifice towards for this war and the troops. "He's more interested in protecting his own class and his own fortunes," Abe grumbled accusingly. "If Roosevelt was a traitor in the eyes of the wealthy elite, what is the aschloch? Your husband is a Star Trek fan. He says it time and time again. 'The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few.' Roosevelt understood this. The American people (in the 1940s) understood this. Bush, however is the only schwienhund who does not --as you kids like to say--'get it.' He has taken your husband's very logical axiom and he has turned it on it's head. 'The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.' Maybe it's even worse. Perhaps he believes that the needs of 'the one,' (himself) outweigh the needs of the many." In either event, Abe truly believes that Bush is more interested in protecting his own elite class than he is in preserving the middle class. "That young man of yours has a theory and it goes something like this: Conservatives see democracy and a thriving middle class as a threat to order and stability. To that I would add, 'you are damned right my dear boy. Especially when it's the conservatives who will be dictating the order and stability." In Abe's opinion the so called conservatives in this country despise, or perhaps even fear, a prosperous middle class because prosperity creates leisure time and leisure time gives people time to think about freedom,. democracy, and human rights. Sadly for us, "freedom, democracy, and human rights are anathema to conservative notions of order and stability"

"My parents came to this country in 1928 after my father read a copy of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf," said Abe. " Papa believed that if someone were crazy enough to write that kind of insanity that same person would be crazy enough to act on his writings if he ever came to power." Regrettably Abe's Aunts and Uncles refused to take Hitler's rambling treatise seriously. While Abe and his parents and three siblings came to the United States, the rest of the family refused to take the German warlord seriously. I don't think I have to tell you what happened to the European branch of his family. "Most of them didn't make it," Abe said ruefully. "Between outright extermination, disease, starvation, and being worked to death...You can guess what happened. Very few of them survived it."

Chillingly, Abe recognizes similar patterns between then and now. "I see another leader," Abe said, "an American leader who is using the same tactics that Hitler used during his rise to power. I see the scapegoating of racial minorities and homosexuals; and those antisemitic Dominionists who celebrate the idea of Jesus coming back to earth to kill and torture the Jewish infidels. Oh yes. They make me feel ever so safe." But it is the political shenanigans which trouble Abe the deepest. "I see (an abuse) of power at the expense of our civil liberties. I see the emergence of a unitary executive branch which is undermining the separation of powers in the same way that the Nazis undermined the Wiemar Republic. And the so called Patriot Act. Is this not the American equivalent of the Enabling Act which Hitler used to claim dictatorial power in the days following the Reichstag Fire?" According to Abe we have been here before. Sadly, the American people are not well versed in their world history and that has made it much easier for Bush Incorporated to rewrite the past record whenever it serves him to do so. "If Bush is cunning sociopath or psychopath--and I believe he is--he is also a megalomaniac. He craves power in the same way that an alcoholic craves the next shot of vodka. We've been here before, We've seen all of this before. But we still have people who think Bush is some kind of great war leader, and we still have people who are willing to give up freedom for security. Ignorance and fear are a frightening combination--especially when they can be manipulated to serve the twisted impulses of a corrupt, and I might add, power hungry leader."

Let Freedom Ring,

The Coalition for a Republican-Free America

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Should Kids Be Classified Under Religious Sects?

When it comes to matters concerning religion, theists and religious groups tend to get away with many of our liberties, with blantant disregard to secular norms and human rights. Rationality and reason, it seems, are applicable to many issues, but when matters of religion are concerned, no amount of reasoning, it seems, can seep into the fabric of entrenched religious dogmas.

Altar boys of a Catholic Church: Catholic Children?

Muslim Children?

Or Just Simply Children?

The minds of children are, metaphorically speaking, untainted blank sheets of paper. They are not born with any inherent beliefs, nor do they have the slightest dogmatic thoughts of invisible deities. Because they are born as such, learning becomes paramount to their existence, for even in a civilized world, knowledge is necessary to keep the child away from harm's way, as well as equipping them with the basic necessary skills for communication and survival. Hence, the idea that children can be attached with any sort of religious identities is not only ludicrous, it inhibits and limits the child's niche to a very selective community.

Richard Dawkins, an eminent atheist and professor, opined that no sane parent would call their child a Tory child, a left-wing child or a liberal child, yet they have no qualms calling them Catholic, Protestant or Muslim children. Such a degree of biaseness, it seems, has nothing to do with the child's beliefs.

All too often, religion is forced and shoved down the throats of children who are barely old enough to discern and rationalize the tenets of various beliefs, and religious folks will tell you that indoctrinating young children is easiest, since their minds are the most pliable at ages below ten. As children, their minds are "programmed" by natural selection to take orders without question. This evolutionary trait of compliance, it seems, allows children to learn the necessary skills for survival within the shortest time frame.

Unfortunately, this very trait has become a form of exploitation by parents who unwittingly indoctrinate their children to obey their respective religions blindly, without seeking any forms of justification, logic and rationality behind their faiths.

By labelling kids in accordance to the religions of their parents, there is also this tendency to segregate these kids from other kids who do not share their parents' religious backgrounds and creeds. Children in a Catholic school, for example, would likely not mix around as much with Protestant children as their catholic counterparts.

Another form of segregation of a more sinister kind may be that parents tend to imprint on the impressionable minds of their children that their beliefs are right, and the rest are outright false, and those so-called "infidels" who do not believe in their exclusive religion would find themselves burning in the raging fires of hell. This abject exclusivity leads to condescension and leads to further arrogance and segregation, for the child who harbors such fire and brimestone beliefs will not see eye to eye with people, possibly showing scant (or worst, disdain) respect to people who do not share their creeds and beliefs. Chances are, such children will stick to their own niche, seldom or never venturing to mix around with friends outside their own little band of religious kids and folks.

While I am not suggesting that classifying kids in accordance to their respective faiths that they are brought up in constitute child abuse, it is important to realize that children are far to young to make up their minds with regards to certain creeds and philosophies, and to label them as religious only serves as just another dastardly means of segregating them from an ideological and religious level.

-"What can it mean to speak of a child's 'own' religion? Imagine a world in which it was normal to speak of a Keynesian child, a Hayekian child, or a Marxist child. Or imagine a proposal to pour government money into separate primary schools for Labour children, Tory children, LibDem children and Monster Raving Loony children? Everyone agrees that small children are too young to know whether they are Keynesian or Monetarist, Labour or Tory, too young to bear the burden of such labels. Why, then, is our entire society happy to slap a label like Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, on a tiny child? Isn't that, when you think about it, a kind of mental child abuse?"

-Richard Dawkins, "Imagine No Religion"

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Do you REALLY want America to be completely Republican-Free?

According to Rassmussen Reports, voters are continuing to flee the GOP so fast that for the first time ever the number of Republicans has fallen into third place, behind not only Democrats (who they now trail by over 5%) but also behind the number of unaffiliated voters. Comparing the 31.0% of American voters who considered themselves to be Republicans now to the 37.1% of American voters who claimed to be Republicans on election day 2004, it appears that fully one out of six Republicans have left the party in only a bit over two years. Most have apparently become unaffiliated voters, though even the most expensive health care system in the world can only keep the Barry Goldwater-loving, Joe McCarthy idolizing, 'the only Democrat they liked was Wallace-- the old Wallace' generation of paleocon dinosaurs alive for so long. Some of them have gone on to a nice, very warm vacation by now.

If we project this rate of decrease linearly, we see that the by the end of the next decade, Republicans will vanish entirely from the earth. And because of their opposition to cloning, stem cell research and universal health coverage, they won't even be able to ward off their own extinction.

I believe the time to do something is now. We must not let this happen. We must apply the provisions of the endangered species act, and create a preserve where Republicans can be protected from all the causes of their ills. Only FOX News will be allowed to broadcast within the preserve, and a continual supply of rosy news will flash across a ticker, right under the quadruple rows of barbed wire fence.

We might even create a captive colony of 'breeder Republicans' in a zoo somewhere, where they can help promulgate the species. Yeah, I know-- you are claiming that they won't because they are afraid of fornication. Well, let me tell ya, that isn't a problem. Truth be known, Republicans love to fornicate. They just don't want anyone to know they liked it. So we will make sure that the Justice Department security cameras that have a little cutout of Alberto Gonzales on them don't show a few select areas for them (though if both the fornicating Republicans are of the same gender, the rest of the captive colony will likely cook them and eat them.)

We cannot let these beautiful creatures die off. After all, they are like a record cold day in May-- you need one once in a long while to remind you of why you are glad it is May.

So just send your check or money order for $100 to the address on your screen...

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Yet Another Bush Idiocy Campaign

Thought everyone might like to read this article I found...

Bush Proposes New State Names

AP - 1 hour, 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In what’s being hailed as a bold move, President Bush announced Thursday a piece of legislation that would change the names of many states in the country. While no specific date is set for the change, the president remains optimistic of the plan. “There’s so many to remember,” he lamented in the official statement. “It makes it easier for everyone in the country, especially all those kids I helped in No Child Left Behind. They don’t have to study as much, this way, which is how our school system should be. No studying. That’s not how kids learn.”

Many officials are surprised at the plan, and already there are steps being taken in Congress to block the new law. “It’s ridiculous,” asserted Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). “It’s taken us this long to learn the state names that already exist. What’s the point of making new ones that we have to learn all over?” Proponents of the bill claim that the new system works better because of the clever name combinations the president created himself. “The new state names are much more efficient than the old ones,” stated Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). “They’re taking the best elements from each state and merging them together to make what we’re calling MegaStates.” Hutchison, as well as inside officials in the White House, have also hinted that the proposal will, at some point, include a new name for the country. “Well, I don’t want to say anything definite yet but we might someday in the near future be known as ‘The United MegaStates of America,’” suggests a source close to the president.

This touches on recent efforts to redraw border lines between states, often connecting a Republican-dominated and Democratic-dominated state. Critics of the legislation claim the president is simply “trying to give his party more votes for Round 2008,” and have begun calling the plans “legislated gerrymandering.” While many Democrats acknowledge some of the combinations are “logical,” such as calling North and South Dakota The Dakotas, or North and South Carolina The Carolinas, the rest, they say, are “preposterous and an insult to this great country.” Other plans include combining New Hampshire and Vermont to form New Vermontshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island in Massicut Island, Wisconsin and Illinois for Illisconsin, and Montana and Idaho for Montanaho. Though those were the only connections explicitly stated in the proposal, many Washington insiders have suspected others may be coming in the future. Among the new names: Calivada, a combination of California and Nevada, and WashOreTon, for Washington and Oregon. Many also speculate that the remaining Midwestern states will be lumped together in a group known as The Middle. “I’ve heard the president say on more than one occasion that there’s so many damn states in the Midwest, who can remember them all? The Middle basically let’s you know where it is geographically, and obviously the states aren’t important enough to make a distinction for themselves. Why do we need to distinguish them further?” one White House official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, recounted. Bush emphasized, however, that Texas will not change. “Don’t mess with Texas,” he warned.

When asked about the rest of the states that were not included in the proposal, the president simply replied, “What other states?” Meanwhile, New York governor Eliot Spitzer has already declared that if the bill is approved, he will secede New York from the country.

Saturday, February 03, 2007


During the long debate running up to the referendum that ultimately banned gay marriage and civil unions in Wisconsin, the fascist PIGS who are so opposed to gay marriage claimed again and again that banning civil unions or gay marriage would not--repeat NOT--have an effect on partner benefits, claiming that this was just rhetoric to scare the voting public at large.

Well, it appears as if the right wing bastards who proposed this are as dishonest as they are bigoted. The appellate court in Michigan recently ruled that it would be unconstitutional under Michigan's gay marriage ban to pay partnership benefits to those individuals who work for the State of Michigan.

Public universities and state and local governments would violate the state constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits.

"The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose," the court wrote.  *
The upshot here is obvious. When the gay bashers and homophobes who were promoting a similar amendment here in Wisconsin told us that partner benefits wouldn't be affected, they were clearly LYING, and while lying is something those on the right side of the political spectrum do on a regular basis, I am still both happy and disgusted to use the all to familiar words:


Let's face it. The ultimate goal of the Christian right and of judges such as these is the eradication of homosexuals, a sort of cultural cleansing. If they can keep gays and lesbians repressed through legal means I'm sure they will do so. And if legal means don't work I suspect that at some time in the future they would pass laws declaring gays and lesbians to be non citizens, and finally subhumans, to be beaten and eradicated at whim. Think Nazi Germany.

As I've said before when fascist institutions, when bigots, want to test their muscle they almost invariably choose two groups to persecute: Jews and homosexuals, followed shortly by women and other convenient scapegoats. The actions of this "Peoples Court" are little more than legalized bigotry, homophobic at its worse: a small decision, by small judges, concerning a small-minded amendment to a small state's constitution. And if you don't think that I am using the word small in the most derogatory manner possible you'd better guess again.


Friday, January 12, 2007


"The Iraq government will appoint military commanders and two deputy commanders for their capitol.  The Iraq government will deploy Iraqi  Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts.   When these forces are fully deployed there will be eighteen Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort along with local police.  These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations, conducting patrols and setting up check points and going door to door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.  This is a Strong commitment.  In order to succeed our commanders say the Iraqis need our help.  So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad.  This will require increasing American force levels.  So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq, the vast majority of them, five brigades, will be deployed to Baghdad.  These troops will work along side Iraqi units and will be embedded in their formations.  Our troops will have a well defined mission.  To help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help the local population, and to help insure the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
George W. Bush
Excerpt from a Speech dated
Wednesday, January 10,   2007
George W. Bush may be a sociopath and his followers may use war as a Viagra substitute, but you just have to give the American Fuhrer credit.  When the son of a bitch decides to mess up he doesn't go half way.   He's the living example as to why conservative Republicans always have to lie on the bottom during sexual intercourse--because they almost invariably fuck up.  And this policy, indeed this president, is just one big fuck up with a name attached to it.
Where do I begin with the key points of  the hackneyed failed policies that Bush had to offer.   Let's just take them at random.
Does George W. Bush really think that he is going to create any kind of unity by embedding American soldiers with Iraqi forces and then letting them rampage on a door to door basis throughout the city of Baghdad?   Yeah.  That's going to earn us some real Brownie points.  That's going to calm the double insurgency that the Sociopath select set into motion in March 2003.   Why I can just see the response now.  All those grateful, genuflecting Iraqis bowing down before the Iraqi thugs and American troops who have just broken down their doors and trashed their houses.   Sweet Jesus we're back to the Neocon delusion of flowers and candy!   The Sociopath select really thinks that the Iraqi people--who already want us to pack up and leave--are going to thank us for this.  Oh, they'll thank us all right.  And how.   They'll hate us even more than they do now and even the few remaining Iraqis who still want us there will be pushed into the welcoming arms of the multiple insurgency movements that have been waiting for the professional screw up in the Whitehouse to make another mistake.
And then we have a problem with the Iraqi police.   I don't know what newspapers or intelligence sources George W. Bush didn't read this week, but up to seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by insurgencies; the Badr Brigade,* which claims to represent Iraqi Shias, and the Medhi Army** which is comprise of radical Shias.    And let's not forget the disgruntled Sunnis who are fighting the disgruntled Shias.  
Talk about an inability to learn from past mistakes:  embedding 21,500 American troops in a situation where they can be fired on by multiple insurgencies.   At the risk of repeating what has probably been stated many times over, it appears as if the sociopath select is still trying to finish that book about the god damned goat.  God knows he isn't reading the news or intelligence reports.  Someone really needs to tell this over glorified punk that to date American soldiers have trained and armed the Iraqi police; after which the same police have turned on their American trainers and killed them.  A fact which the sociopath select has yet to comprehend. 
Also of interest is the idea of using Iraqi police stations.  Again,. where has this president been?  Iraqi police stations have been targets for month after month after bloody month.  Again, all the president will achieve is more bloodshed, more wounded troops, more dead solders, and more wounded and dead Iraqis.  
Sadly the quoted portion of the speech wasn't the only area in which the president displayed a stunning lack of ethical comprehension.   We now have George W. Bush on record openly accepting responsibility for his past mistakes.   On the surface that sounds good, but like most right wingers, George W. Bush still believes that personal responsibility is something that applies only to the people below him.  And when we're talking about George W. Bush, an unfeeling sociopath with obvious obvious traces of  malignant narcissism, the people below means anyone who isn't George W. Bush.   Once AGAIN our moronic megalomaniac has found a way to divorce consequences from personal responsibility.  Come on now.  Let's get real here.   If your performed your job with the same degree of incompetence that George W. Bush and his crime family have performed their job in Iraq you would have been shown the door within weeks or perhaps even days.   You would have been fired, downsized, sacked.  You get the drift.   With that in mind  I am about to make a novel suggestion. 
If the imbecilic decider in the oval office is truly  serious about accepting responsibility he must prove to the American people that he is telling the truth.  He must prove a certain degree of sincerity.  For the well being of this country, for the well being of his own party, and for the well being of the freedoms that he so eagerly wants to roll back, George W. Bush and Vice Fuhrer Cheney should both step down, resign their positions immediately.   Short of that I cannot think of another way in which this maladjusted maladministration can prove that it has taken responsibility for the destructive consequences of its imbecilic actions. 
Of equal importance was what George W. Bush did not say.  Note that we are not going to talk to Iran or Syria.   That seems bizarre in the case of Iran. *** For all intents and purposes a majority of the Iranian people still like the American people.  They like American culture:  American movies, American fashion, American music.  And while they don't want to entirely separate from their Muslim heritage, they do want a lightening of the burden that is the Iranian theocracy and the rule of the Ayatollahs.  So what did George W. Bush do on Wednesday night?  Once again he singled out Iran for another one of his little digs.   It's almost as if he's TRYING to alienate the American people.  And if  Bush thinks for a minute that an armed invasion or even bombing of Iran will endear this country to the Iranian people, George W. Bush is sadly mistaking.   Indeed, Bush's ignorance in this matter is somewhat baffling.   The Neocons are viscerally nationalistic in their world view.  You'd think that they would understand that an attack on Iran by an outside power would only have the effect of unifying the Iranians against the attacker.   By the same standard the Decider's innate fear of diplomacy seems equally moronic.   Throughout the cold war we maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.  Nikita Kruschchev stood up at the United Nations and threatened to bury us; a  few years later that same Soviet dictator planted Soviet missiles in Cuba; and through it all we had arsenals of nuclear weapons pointed at one another but we did not break of diplomatic relations.   George W. Bush simply has not learned the basic lesson that in the realm of international relations you keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.  Of course it could be that George W. Bush is so incredibly dense that he couldn't tell a friend from an enemy at a distance of six inches.  This, after all is the same President who looked into the eyes of Vladimir Putin and apparently found a soul mate. 
In closing I shall only offer the following.   Asking this president and vice president  to show anything in the way of intelligence or normal human behavior is asking too much.  George W. Bush has proposed an increase of 21,500 Americans troops.   21,500 will become sitting ducks in the cross fire of competing militias and insurgency movements.   I see no reason to believe this mistake will be any less gruesome than previous mistakes.  We've had 160,000 troops in Iraq before, and look at where we are today; look at what it brought us.  It didn't make a difference then--unless you call an increase in the number of dead and wounded American soldiers a difference--and it won't make a difference this time either.   All it will do is prolong the misery, create even more hatred for us in the Mideast, and breed more of the terrorism that George W. Bush and his empty-headed followers so foolishly think that they will control. 
*** As if to prove my point, on January 11th U.S. forces in Iraq conducted a raid in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil.  The target?  Iran's consulate.   For more information check out:

Thursday, January 11, 2007


This is the text to a popular email that's flying around these days.   I have received it from three different sources in the past few days.   To give you some idea as to how disgusted I am with this piece of nonsense I have decided to post the entire text of the email here, in black.   My corrections are written in blue.    By the time I was finished with it  I realized that the airhead who wrote this, a clueless spoiled brood sow named Vicky, was the epitome of what she chose to criticize.   Make of it what you will.     As for the author...OH SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just aren't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?  (Meaning what?  That we have to deteriorate to the point of genocide before we have a right to complain?   Talk about a straw man argument.   How bad do things have to get before we're allowed to complain? )

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?    (Notice that the author didn't mention anything about airport security, or the lack of privacy in emails, phone calls and the United States Mail.)  Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.   ( I could show you a lot of dives and greasy spoons too, honey bunch--not to mention soup kitchens and emergency food pantries.) Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved.  ( We're supposed to be grateful because of a basic necessity?  Do we have to let corpses rot on the roadside before we have a right to complain?  And while we're at it, 46 million Americans are uninsured and would probably lose their life savings and their homes even if they were to survive the initial trauma. )  Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.  (Again, no mention of the probable hospital stay that will follow the initial trauma.) 

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.  (Oh Sweet Jesus.   This person should have lived in the neighborhoods where I lived.  Drive by shootings were common place.  Rape, robbery, and drug abuse are common place in some areas of this country.  Are we to ignore them because they don't compose good news?   How typical of the over protected in our society  to ignore real problems in the real world.  Enough already with this cultural ignorance.  Indeed, the whole tone her is turning into a rant of "I have mine, my life is great fuck the next guy!)

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.  ( Almost all of which are being consumed by the fascist regime in Washington.  Welcome to the world Of George Adolf Bush where religious freedom means the right to impose Christianity on nonChristians.  Where social freedoms like marriage and domestic partnerships are limit ted to heterosexuals and where political freedom means the right of Republicans to rig elections, jam phone lines, and deny minority voters their right to vote.)

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.  (Correction.  Those people who refuse to see beyond the confines of their gated white communities are ungrateful spoiled brats AND BIGOTS who assume all is right with the world because all is right in their personal lives.  And I might point out that the downward spiral of our popularity into outright hatred against us  began under George W. Bush. ) 

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11?  (And who used it to start an Iraqi Civil War of choice for colonial exploitation!) The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession?  (Yes,  most of which went to the top one percent who deserved it and needed it the least!.) Can this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks?  The commander (DEMANDER)  in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?  (Take another look.  Recruitment is way down.   So much for your volunteer army.)

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. (WRONG.  We have a backdoor draft by which soldiers are forced to serve countless tours of duty and don't even get me started on the National Guard and how Bush has bastardized THAT concept.) They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.   ( Take another look toots.  Even the TROOPS are disgusted with this war, and I might add hat your rhetoric here reduces the troops to the modern day equivalent of human sacrifices.   Are we supposed to applaud their deaths because they volunteered?  And while we're at it, Why aren't those spoiled miscreants Barbara and Jenna Bush serving in the armed forces?  Where are the sons of our politicians?  Why didn't Republican law makers demand that their sons and daughters go off to fight.   Oh  Jeeze.  Could it be that SOME people in this country want other people's kids to die so that THEIRS won't have to die?  Talk about spoiled fucking brats. As for the idea that troops will only serve a few days in the brig...Just let them speak out about Bush and his war crimes, or let them refuse to go back for another tour and they face COURT MARTIAL CHARGES followed by at least a couple of years of imprisonment.  NOT a few days in the brig.   Get back into the real world little girl!) 

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media.( Most fascists do.  Don't change the offending behavior--shoot the messenger!)  If it bleeds it leads  ( Bush created enough bleeding ) and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit 
corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did ? Insane!  (Yes, but this was the FOX Propaganda Network!)

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country.  (Translated into modern English, don't think, ignore bad news, and remain in ignorance!)
There is exponentially more good than bad. 
(We are and we did--in November when the American people told the Nazi sociopath in the Whitehouse that we were sick of him and his fascist policies.  PRAISE THE LORD!  THANK YOU A THOUSAND TIMES OVER!)

Noli nothis permittere te terere

Saturday, December 23, 2006


To our our readers and to ourselves.   A very happy, safe, and Merry Christmas
The Cast and Crew at the Colaiition for a Republican-Free America

Monday, December 18, 2006

Married to the Mob.

I am posting a serious post here. But it's about a topic that everyone should become educated about: How John McCain got where he did.

Ever since the 2000 election, when Vietnam combat veteran John McCain burst onto the scene in the Republican Presidential primaries as a 'moderate alternative' to George W. Bush, it seems that he has led a charmed political life. George Bush is known to detest McCain personally, but he has needed him. Liberals held their fire because every now and then McCain throws them a bone (in fact John Kerry wasted valuable time and effort trying to convince McCain, who was the chair of the Bush campaign in Arizona, to defect and run on a ticket with him; what it also meant was that when John Kerry picked John Edwards for the ticket, everyone knew he was a second choice.) Independents ooze over the conservative McCain (and conservative he is, just look at his voting record,) as if they think he is one of them. Even Bush backers, like Pat Robertson (who thoroughly trashed McCain in South Carolina) have warmed up to him.

And one of McCain's biggest assets, according to most of these people is that he eschews negative campaigning.

There is a good reason for that though. It's a tale that involves organized crime, corruption and murder. Let's say that John McCain never runs a negative ad against his opponents because he doesn't want them to dig too hard.

It's because McCain is where he is because of his marriage to his second wife, Cindy. No, Cindy Hensley McCain is not where the story begins. She was a young 25 when McCain married her (he was 43). According to the Arizona Republic on June 5, 1999, McCain joked that his marriage was based on a 'tissue of lies.' Both he and she had lied to each other, she claiming to be older than she was and he claiming to be younger. Yeah, I know-- what a good foundation for a marriage to start off on. To their credit the McCains however have stayed together. Or maybe there are other reasons...

One wonders what Cindy told McCain about her father. When did McCain learn how her father-in-law Jim Hensley made his fortune? Sooner or later he had to be dealt in on the 'family jewels.' After all, they helped finance a run for Congress and not long after that for the Senate.

Jim Hensley and his brother Eugene went to work after World War II for Kemper Marley, a wealthy wholesale liquor distributor. Marley, in fact, had once been a bookie, getting his start working for the Transamerica Wire Service, a betting service established by mafiosi Gus Greenbaum (who was murdered with his wife when their throats were slashed in bed in 1958). Until 1947, liquor was rationed by the government. Apparently Marley did quite well in spite of the restrictions, and in 1948 the reason why became clear. Eugene and Jim Hensley were convicted of falsifying records on behalf of Marley's distributorship, United Liquor (along with fifty other Marley employees) to conceal the illegal distribution of hundreds of cases of liquor. Jim Hensley got a six month suspended sentence.

In 1953, Jim Hensley, then the General Manager for United Liquor, was charged again for doing the same thing again. Marley paid for top notch legal representation though (future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.) Hensley still went to prison, but took the fall when the rest of the company was cleared. According to an article in American, Marley rewarded Hensley for his loyalty to the organization:

When Hensley strolled out of the joint, Marley bought his silence with a lucrative Phoenix-based Budweiser beer distributorship.

That distributorship and the rest of Marley's empire did very well over the decades for both Hensley and Marley, making both men multi-millionaires.

In fact, Marley was interested in more than just liquor. In 1976, then Gov. Raul Castro, a Democrat, appointed Marley, then a billionaire and the state's richest man, to the state racing commission.

And that's when one of those pesky investigative reporters got in the way. The reporter's name was Don Bolles and he worked for the Arizona Republic. Bolles discovered a land fraud ring and other crimes that appeared to lead to Sen. Barry Goldwater and others in Arizona's power structure. And he discovered that Kemper Marley, newly appointed to the State Board Racing Commission, had connections to the Mafia. In fact, Marley was a close associate of Peter Licavoli, the mob boss for Arizona. Marley had also served as Chairman of the Board for Valley National Bank, which helped bankroll Bugsy Siegel's construction of the Flamingo in Las Vegas. Digging into Marley's past also uncovered his earlier work for Gus Greenbaum. The revelations forced Marley to resign from the commission.

And Kemper Marley wasn't someone you crossed lightly.

On June 2, 1976, Bolles climbed into his car and was blown apart by a bomb under the driver's seat. Pieces of his body were strewn around the parking lot. Bolles amazingly survived for eleven days and said to investgators on the scene, "They finally got me. The Mafia. Emprise. Find John (Harvey) Adamson."

Adamson was later convicted of the murder. But who hired him? That trail was never really followed up on, according to members of the Arizona Project, a group of reporters who began looking into mob ties after the murder.

Following Bolles' death, more than 30 journalists from the then-newly formed Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) group arrived in Phoenix to carry out their late colleague's work....

Don Devereux, another Arizona Project reporter, feels the IRE team may have trusted the authorities too much. "We accepted very uncritically their scenario. In retrospect, we were very naive to get lead around. It really isn't something that we should be running around congratulating ourselves about," says Devereux of the IRE investigation...

"The biggest disservice we did to Bolles was not paying more attention to him," says Devereux. "His dying words were words we should have glommed onto a little more seriously, because when he was lying on the pavement he said: `Adamson, Emprise, Mafia. ... Emprise was almost Bolles' white whale. He was obsessed by them...."

Emprise, a Buffalo, NY based sports concessionire with known mob ties, had a circuit of Greyhound racing tracks in Arizona. So who was named to the Racing Commission was of vital interest to Emprise. Enter Kemper Marley. Exit Kemper Marley, courtesy of Bolles.

The Phoenix police theorized that Marley wanting revenge enlisted the help of local contractor Max Dunlap. Dunlap then allegedly hired Adamson to carry out the bombing. Adamson claimed that plumber James Robison assisted him.

Over the years, Dunlap and Robison have maintained their innocence. Dunlap remains incarcerated. Although, Robison gained acquittal in a retrial, he is still awaiting release from prison on a related charge. Meanwhile, the state paroled Adamson [in 1996], and he disappeared into the federal witness protection program.

The Phoenix police never even arrested Marley, who died in 1990.

Meanwhile, Jim Hensley remained a close friend of Kemper Marley. In fact, it was Bolles who wrote that the Hensleys had bought Ruidoso Downs horse racing track in New Mexico on behalf of Marley. Eugene Hensley later sold the track to a buyer linked to Emprise (linked here as described in the Phoenix Gazette, Jan. 4, 1990.)

In 1982, McCain decided to run for Congress. That takes some quick money, and McCain had access to it-- thanks to his father in law (whose employees at his liquor distributorship were 'persuaded' to donate thousands of dollars to McCain), and one of Hensley's friends, Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L (I won't get into the Lincoln S&L scandal here because it is pretty well known by now that McCain was one of the 'Keating Five.') To seal the deal, Jim Hensley and Cindy Hensley McCain invested $359,100 in one of Keating's projects.

It has been said that the Mafia never really left, they have just moved upscale. That is certainly the case in Las Vegas, where the casinos are corporations and run in a businesslike manner (so a Bugsy Siegel would be an anachronism, but I'm also not sure I'd want to make an enemy out of some of the folks who have those offices on the top floor.) The original Cosa Nostra may have been largely broken up, but the remnants of the Mafia are still around, mostly in fat family bank accounts and politicians they have helped move forward, and John McCain is privvy to one and is the other.

Friday, December 15, 2006


I'm sure by now that everyone has read the Time Magazine Article by James Dobson in which he condemned Mary Cheney and gay parenting in general.   


Well, surprise.   It appears as if Mister Dobson has done what the Christian Right does best.    He has engaged in the pseudo scientific practice of taking other peoples research out of context to support his distorted and highly bigoted world view.    It appears as if Mister Dobson has misrepresented the legitimate research of others using their information in the exact opposite way in which it was intended.


Said Doctor Kyle Pruitt at Yale University :


"Doctor Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which your convictions opposing lesbian and Gay parenthood. You cherry picked a phrase to shore up highly discriminatory purposes.  This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo science circles.  There is nothing in my longitudal research or in any of my writings to support such conclusions.   One page 134 of the book you site in your piece I wrote "what we do know is that there's no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers.   It is love that bonds relationships, not sex."


Said Carol Gilligan of New York University also had a few choice words about Mister Dobson's misinterpretation of her work, writing:


"Dear Doctor Dobson.  I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future.   I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column in Time Magazine.   Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with.   What yu wrote was not truthful and I ask you to refrain from quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my words.   There is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article.   My work in no way suggests that same gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be healthy or well-adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.   I trust this will be the last time my work is sited by Focus on the Family."


I think it's safe to say that Mister Dobson has again been revealed as a liar and a fraud and a hate-mongering bigot.. In fact, his latest chicanery raises the obvious question:   Why should we trust this man when he speaks to any issue? 

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Nothing I could dream up is as bizarre as what the nutbag right really comes up with

Hat tip to Feministing.

According to the latest wacky theory being kicked around on the far right, A Devil Food is turning our kids into homosexuals.

No, that's the real headline.

According to the article,

There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore...

Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally....

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to... sexual confusion and homosexuality.

So that's it! The geniuses in the nutbag right have finally figured it out! Burn the U.S. soy bean crop and there will be no more homosexuals. Oh, and if you meet a guy from Iowa, just keep in mind that it is the soybean capitol of America (that's right, it wasn't Klinger, it was really Hawkeye all the time.) And go back to that headline-- obviously soybeans weren't put here for the benefit of civilization, no, they were planted by the devil. Buy a bottle of soy sauce, and you're bringing Lucifer home with you from the supermarket.

Yeesh! You have to admit, they have gotten pretty creative trying to justify their anti-homosexual ranting.

Saturday, December 09, 2006


by DOCTOR SEUSS ( AKA Theodor Geisel)
Parody Version by Brandon, Daniel, Jeffrey, and Kelli

Every Blue
Up in Blue-ville
Loved Christmas a lot
But the Shrub
Who lived South of Blue-ville
The Shrub hated Christmas; and this was a reason
He hated the joy and the whole peaceful season.
It could be perhaps he loved pain and the fright
Or maybe his brain wasn't working quite right
But I believe that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his conscience was no conscience at all.

But whatever the reason
The soul or his brain
He cursed through December, raising all kinds of Cain
Glaring up from DC with a mean Bushy smirk
He proved to the people that the Shrub was a jerk
Yes he knew every Blue up in Blue-ville above
Was now happily showing the peace and the love

"And they've taken my Congress," he complained in a snit
"They're praying for peace, they are so full of shit."
Then he clawed with Bush talons, crazily drumming
"Stop democracy now, keep the freedom from coming."

For tomorrow he knew
All the Blue girls and boys
Would wake up in the morning and then play with their toys
And then oh the joy! Oh the joy joy joy joy!
That's a thing Shrub hate so, the JOY JOY JOY JOY!

They'd do something
That didn't belong
Every Blue up in Blue-ville, the weak and the strong
Would speak truth to power, and fresh from their winning,
They;d look in Shrub's face and they'd tell him "stop spinning!"
They'd tell and they'd tell!

And the more the Shrub thought of the things they would tell

The more the Shrub thought "I'll send Christmas to hell!
"Why for six God damned years we've exploited it now!
"I'll screw Christmas good!
"But how?"

Then Shrub got an idea
A dreadful idea

"I know how to do it," the Shrub growled out loud
And he made a quick plan that would make Beelzebub proud.
And he smirked and he sneered, "what a great dirty trick!
"With some lies and the press I'll make every Blue sick!

"All I need is a gimmick!"
The Shrub looked around.

"But since truth is rare here it'll never be found.
Did that bother the Shrub?
"No The Shrub coyly said

"If I can't tell the truth I'll tell whoppers instead!"
So he called his pet FOX, then he called on the Reich

And the pundits crawled out, telling "facts" that weren't right

He sat in his chair
On his fat lazy ass
And the "Christians" all bitched
As the days came to pass.

And the corporate press
Came to spread the attack
Start a Yuletide war
To distract from Iraq.

All their words were ablaze, hatred soon frilled the air.
And the Blues were all hearing that the right never cared
"We will mow the Blues down," Sean Hannity hissed.
"We're God-fearing pigs and we want our butts kissed!

"We demand Merry Christmas, no more Holiday tree
"Shove our faith down your throat so that Blues can't be free!"
The Shrub found it good, how loved Goebbels chant!
And he laughed and he laughed with each right wing rant!
The radical "Christians" want a theocrat state.
To burn witches and homos and do it for hate.

The rage was a flowing; it's what fundies do best
They will persecute all and they won't let it rest
"The Jews and the Wicans, the Muslims, yes ma'am!
"The Buddhists and Hindus, agnostics all damned!"
They say they love Jesus, and they must do his will
But the words that they use are just so much damned swill

"No more Hanukkah dear, then Quanza must go!
"The solstice is next, yes we sunk oh so low!
"Burn 'Jingle Bells' soon,, its not in our canon
"We'll ban 'Deck The Balls' 'cause we don't like ass rammin'
"And we'll shot sidewalk Santas because Satan is vile

"Then we'll burn pagan wreaths if you give us awhile."

And the Shrub was a laughin' in spite of himself
Then he reached for the bottles that he kept on the shelf
He gulped down the brandy and sipped up the rum
"The ah people," he stammered, they sure can be dumb!"

The shrub was caught up in his maniac laughter
So eager to see what the Blues would do after.
All the Blues, he well knew, would ask 'W' why?
"Why ruin our Christmas, oh please tell us why?!"

But you know that mean Shrub was so mad and so slick
He found a new lie and he tossed it out quick
"Dear people, dear friends," the 'W' lied.
"I love Christmas too, won't you please join my side?
"I love Joseph and Marry and Baby Christ too

"I know who to kill ; that's what Jesus would do!"

And he fooled the few so inclined to believe
And the shrub was relaxed, he felt oh so relieved
So the pundits were griping with Yuletide Cheer
They made "Merry Christmas" a tool of fear.

And the last thing Bush said,
"Merry Christmas to you,"
Made the Fundies and Pastors think that Shrub was Christ too
And they prayed to the Shrub, just what else could they do?
And if there was truth

That he told on that day
It was lost while the freaks went on talking away

Robertson spoke
And Herr Dobson did rave
But when they were done not a single soul had been saved.

The Pastors of hate said "Happy Holiday, dead.
"We think with out butts and we don't use our heads.
"We hate all the Blues, yes our compassion is done
"They'll pray to our God at the point of a gun!
"They soon will we wake up, we know what they'll do!
"They'll cry and they'll fuss and we'll tell them 'screw you!'
"And the Blues up in Blue-ville will act as we tell them to do!"

"Here t comes," cackled Shrub
"This I simply MUST hear!"
And there was a new sound rising up from the crowd
It started out low and then it got oh so loud!

But the sound wasn't fear
Why the sound wasn't sad
Te Shrub was aghast
The sound was upbeat and glad!

He glared up at Blue-ville
His shorts in a bunch
What he saw hit him hard and he brought up his lunch.

Every Blue up in Blue-ville, the weak and the strong,
Was speaking and telling the Shrub was all wrong.
He hadn't screwed Holiday freedom at all
It came
The Liberty came and it drove Shrub insane

And the Shrub in his anger, just couldn't conceive
Why sane people heard lies and refused to believe.
"It came with the Muslims! It came with the Jews!
It came with Agnostics! It came with the Blues!"
And he screamed and he screamed, 'til his throat was too hoarse
Then he shouted for hours but his rage ran no course
So he fell to the floor and he chewed on the rug
His talons dug carpet, oh he DUG DUG DUG DUG!

So what happened then?
Up in Blue-ville they say
The FASCIST right wing really lost it that day!
O'Reilly went home and he started to pout!
Rush Limbaugh killed pain, Oxycontin no doubt
Anne Coulter threw up 'til her implants fell out

And the Shrub
Drank Drank Drank
With a whine and a shout.