Saturday, October 22, 2005


Editor's note by Kyle and Karen Kilpatrick
Sometimes our commentary forum provides the required inspiration for a new post. This is one of those times.

by Kyle and Karen Kilpatrick

I've been thinking that we need a waym a methodology in which we could achieve the Country Club Republican/Libertarian objective of an unstable society divided along class lines with a massive worker class, a declining middle class, and a tiny Plutocratic elite, and I think I may have stumbled upon an a solution.

It begins with a return to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution, as it now exists, is little more than an anachronistic document written by rich, white people for the benefit of rich, white people. Many of them believed that the American people were not wise enough to govern themselves through a direct democracy so they deliberately created a representative system in which (at least initially) only those with enough wealth to own property were allowed to vote. It seems to me that if we are to be consistent with the intentions of the Framers that we should adopt the same, class conscious attidudes and beliefs as the moneyed, land-owning Founders and do our best to limit rights and wealth to those who have already proved their moral, intellectual, and biological superiority by either earning their own wealth or pickpocketing the wealth of others.

To that end, might abolish the concept of individual rights and pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting civil liberties to organizations (i.e. corporations). We could overturn all legislation which hindered the spread of sweat shops, child labor, unsafe working conditions, and 50 cent per hour wages. This could be accompanied by a nullification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which would re-legalize slavery, although this time the institution would be based on economic caste instead of race.

In a similar veing we might limit civil liberties to those who earn more than $100,000 per year after taxes. If you aren't earning your required $100,00 by the time you turn 24 years of age, then you might be counted as a 3/5 human being and sold to the highest bidder, the bidding being limited to those who have earned the above mentioned $100,000 per anum for a minimum of five years in a row on the day of the purchase.

Having created the first generation of class-based servants, who we might refer to as "The Elois," or The Untouchables," we could institutionalize the practice by delcaring the children of such indviduals to be a part of their parents' caste. This might prove difficult in those cases where spouses come from different sides of the economic track, but that might be remedied by considering the average household income. Moreover, we could shame churches and judges who opt to marry people from different social backgrounds. Even then, some enterprising individuals might actually find ways to buy their own freedom, but if the present model is any indication--with social mobility in a state of stagnation--this won't be a significant factor in the overall economy.

Once you become the American untouchable the chances are that you won't be migrating out of your given caste at any time in near future--if ever. It's a little like what's happening now, only it would be more open and honest in its intent to burden repressed, underpaid workers with all sorts of fringe benefits such as black lung disease, tuberculosis, weakened bodies, and shortened life spans.

On the minus side, this might produce a significant number of Elois (or Untouchables) with weakened immune systems, thus increasing the possibility of a pandemic among the working class. But with medical technology limited to the dwindling middle class and tiny upper class, any viral or bacterial outbreak would be limitted to the workers, while their upper class masters would benefit from vaccinations, anti-biotics, and state of the art therapies. Obvioulsy this would require a large and constantly replentished supply of cheap, marginalized labor, but to achieve that goal we could use the power of the church to establish the political and domestic superiority of men, delegating women to second class citizenship and requiring them (i.e. fertile females of child-bearing age) to give birth to a minimum of six children during their lifetimes. Abortion and contraception would be stricly prohibitted among The Elois (Untouchables), but neither encouraged nor discouraged among the ruling classes of the new American Plutocracy.

The benefits, however, are obvious. Those who were able to use their already considerable resources to manipulate an already unfair system will reap the pleasures of unearned benefits, while the truly deserving toil until they drop.

Moreover, the possibilities, the opportunities, for Wall Street Marketers would be obvious. They could flood the corporate-owned media with propaganda, convincing the American Elois to spend their already meager "incomes" on worthless items that are neither needed nor affordable. The possibilities for a Sprawl-Fart (ur-ah, Wal Mart) sort of "Buy American" campaign are virtually endless. I can see the ad headlines even now!






And then there's my personal favorite.


Granted, the above system, which in so many ways mirrors our current system, will prove unsustainable, and will probably result in either a return to a New Deal style of legislation or a violent revolution, but what to hell? We can at least live in comfort knowing that the very few were able to cannibalize the very many for such a long period of time.

Friday, October 21, 2005

WHO's WINNING THE CLASS WAR? "We're More Productive," by Bob Herbert

Editor's note, by Kyle Kilpatrick
The following editorial by Bob Herbert appeared in the April 5, 2004 edition of the Walworth Times and is offered here as a thought piece for liberals and conservatives alike.

April 5, 2004

We’re More Productive. Who Gets the Money?

by Op-ed Columnist

By Bob Herbert

It’s like running on a treadmill that keeps increasing its speed. You have to go faster and faster just to stay in place. Or, as a factor worker said many years ago, “You can work ‘til you drop[ dead, but you won’t get ahead.”

American workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, but they are getting fewer and fewer benefits of this increased productivity. While the economy, as measured in gross domestic productivity, has been strong for some time now, ordinary workers have gotten little more than the back of the hand from employers, who have pocketed an unprecedented share of the cash from this burst of economic growth.

What is happening is nothing short of historic. The American workers’ share of the increase in national income since November 2001, the end of the last recession, is the lowest on record. Employers took the money and ran. This is extraordinary but few people are talking about it, which tells you something about the hold that corporate interests have on the national conversation.

The situation is summed up in the long, unwieldy but very revealing title of a new study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University: “The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits and Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation—Gainers and Losers from the National Recovery in 2002 and 2003.”

Andrew Sum, the center’s director and lead author of the study, said: This is the first time we’ve ever had a case where two years into a recovery, corporate profits got a larger share of the growth of the national income than labor did. Normally labor gets about 65 percent and corporate profits about 15 to 18 percent. This time profits got 41 percent and labor [meaning all forms of employee compensation, including wages, benefits, salaries and the percentage of payroll taxes paid by employers] got 38 percent.”

The study said: In no other recovery from a post-World War II recession did corporate profits ever account for as much as 20 percent of the growth in national income. And at no time did corporate profits ever increase by a grater amount than labor compensation”

In other words, an awful lot of American workers have been had. Fleeced. Taken to the cleaners.

The recent productivity gains have been widely acknowledged. But workers are not being compensated for this. During the past two years, increases in wages and benefits have been very weak, nonexistent. And despite the growth of jobs in March that had the Bush crowd dancing in the White House halls last Friday, there has been no increase in formal payroll employment since the end of the recession. We have lost jobs. There are fewer payroll jobs now than there were when the recession ended in November 2001.

So if employers were not hiring workers, and if they were miserly when it came to increases in wages and benefits for existing employees, what happened to all the money from the strong economic growth?

The study is very clear on this point. The bulk of the gains did not go to workers, “but instead were used to boost profits, lower prices, or increase C.E.O. compensation.”

This is a radical transformation of the way the bounty of this country has been distributed since World War II. Workers are being treated more and more like patrons in a rigged casino. They can’;t win.

Corporate profits go up. The stock market goes up. Executive compensation skyrockets. But workers, for the most part, remain on the treadmill.

When you look at corporate profits verses employee compensation in this recovery, and then compare, as Mr. Sum and his colleagues did, with the eight previous recoveries since World War II, it’s like turning a chart upside down.

The study found that the amount of growth devoured by corporate profits in the recovery is “historically unprecedented,” as is the “low share…accruing to the nation’s workers in the form of labor compensation.”

I have to laugh when I hear conservatives complaining about class warfare. They know this terrain better than anyone. They launched the war. They’re waging it. And they’re winning.

Monday, October 17, 2005


Blogger's note by Advocate 1 The following article by David E. Sanger appeared in the 17 October 2005 online addition of the New York Times and can be accessed at following address for additional links.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 - For most of the 30 months since American-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has argued that as democracy took hold in Iraq, the insurgency would lose steam because Al Qaeda and the opponents of the country's interim government had nothing to offer Iraqis or the people of the Middle East.

Over time, President Bush told troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., this spring, "the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world."

But inside the administration, that belief provides less solace than it once did. Senior officials say the intelligence reports flowing over their desks in recent months argue that even if democratic institutions take hold, the insurgency may strengthen. And that possibility has created a quandary for an administration that desperately wants to equate democracy-building with winning the war, but so far has not been able to match the two.

That internal struggle was evident this weekend, as Mr. Bush returned to Washington sounding less celebratory about Iraq's constitutional referendum - whose outcome is suspected but still unknown - than he did after Iraq's elections last January. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking from London on "Fox News Sunday," was somewhat more definitive: "The Sunnis are joining the base of this broad political process," she said. "That will ultimately undo this insurgency. But of course, they can still pull off violent and spectacular attacks."

Mr. Bush's own way of talking about the future, in Iraq and beyond, has undergone a subtle but significant change in recent weeks. In several speeches, he has begun warning that the insurgency is already metastasizing into a far broader struggle to "establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." While he still predicts victory, he appears to be preparing the country for a struggle of cold war proportions.

It is a very different tone than administration officials sounded in the heady days after Saddam Hussein's fall, and then his capture.

After an extensive debate inside the White House, Mr. Bush has begun directly rebutting the arguments laid out in manifestos and missives from Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr. bin Laden's top aide.

He did so again on Saturday, quoting from one of Mr. Zawahiri's purported letters - one whose authenticity is still the subject of some question - which predicted that the Iraq war would end as Vietnam had, and that, in Mr. Bush's words, "America can be made to run again." The president argued anew that the terrorist leader was "gravely mistaken."

"There's always the question of whether we give these guys more credibility by directly addressing their arguments," one of Mr. Bush's most senior aides said recently. "But the president was concerned that we hadn't described Iraq to the American people for what it is - a struggle of ideologies that isn't going to end with one election, or one constitution, or even a string of elections."

For an administration that has recalibrated and re-explained its strategy in Iraq many times in the past 30 months, this latest turn may be a recognition of changed realities.
A year ago, Mr. Bush interpreted his re-election as the nation's embrace of his strategy and its willingness to bear the cost in lives and money to get Iraq on its feet. But now, the pressure is building for a pathway out. The passage of the constitution, some of Mr. Bush's political aides say, would be bound to fuel those calls.

"All fall, we've been hearing the question, 'When does this begin to end?' " one of Mr. Bush's senior strategists said a few weeks ago, insisting on anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue inside the White House. The White House, he added, was trying to head off what some officials fear could be a broader split in the party over the war come spring, as midterm elections approach and Republicans seeking re-election are tempted to join the call for a timetable for drawing down troop levels.

The change is clear in what Mr. Bush is saying - but also in what he and his aides are no longer saying.

In the prelude to the war and in the early days of the occupation, Mr. Bush and top members of his national security team compared the effort to remake Iraq to the American occupations of Japan and Germany. As the insurgency grew - a feature missing from those two successful occupations - they dropped that comparison. Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under Colin L. Powell, argued in an interview recently published by an Australian magazine, The Diplomat, that it was a flawed way of thinking from the start.

"Those who argued at the time that the acceptance of democracy in Iraq would be easy, and who drew on our experience with Japan and Germany, were wrong," he said. "First of all, Germany and Japan were homogeneous societies. Iraq is not." He added that the German and Japanese populations were "exhausted and deeply shocked by what had happened," but that Iraqis were "un-shocked and un-awed."

Now administration officials are beginning to describe the insurgency as long-lasting, more akin to Communist insurgencies in Malaysia or the Philippines, but with a broader and more deadly base. Even conservatives who supported Mr. Bush's decision to go to war say the change in tone is welcome.

"I think the president has been consistent," said Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who has written extensively on the nature of civilian command and is sometimes consulted by the administration. "But they've had people, myself among them, beating them up for happy talk and not making an argument" about the nature of the struggle.

"I do think they are making more of an effort to explain themselves," he added. "But it took pressure from their friends, and political pressure as well, to overcome a reluctance about what they were really doing."

Others take a harsher view. Kenneth Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst and now a scholar at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, said Mr. Bush's new tone reflected "the fact that their whole theory about how this is going to work out isn't working, and almost certainly isn't going to work." He added, "The theory that democracy is the antidote to insurgency gets disproven on the ground every day."

The real test may come after parliamentary elections, which, if the constitution is found to have passed this weekend, are scheduled for Dec. 15. After that date, a senior administration official noted with some dread in his voice, "there are no more democratic landmarks for us to point to - that's when we learn whether the Iraqi state can stay together."


Blogger's note by Advocate 1 Why does this not surprise any of us? This is what those of us on the left had been predicting during the run up to the war. Sometimes being right (as in correct) can be a real curse.

Saturday, October 15, 2005


Just when you think this President has reached an all time low he finds a way to sink even lower. I am refering to the recent staged videoconference where our congenital liar of a president didn't even have the backbone to tell his own distortions. No longer satisfied to prevaricate on his own, he now has to enlist young, American troops to assist in his outrageous propaganda. I am of course refering to the recent, staged video conference in which a group of American GIs were told what to say prior to a supposedly "spontaneous" conversation with our sociopathic Demander and Thief. The last I knew an event is neither spontaneous nor honest if it is rehearsed and coached ahead of time. Of course, this would only hold true in a normal world, and if we know anything about the Bush regime it is this: the only way it would ever tell the truth would be if it do so by accident.

In case the link doesn't work I shall print the entire article below. Otherwise it may be found at:

Bush Videoconference With Soldiers Gets Flak For Being Staged

By Warren Vieth and Mark Mazzetti Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - President Bush touched off a new round of controversy over his policies in Iraq Thursday when he conducted a videoconference interview about this weekend's constitutional referendum with a small group of hand-picked troops stationed in Iraq who reinforced his upbeat view of the conflict. The closely coordinated exchange drew disapproval from Democratic war critics as well as some Pentagon military leaders. The soldiers were coached. Before the session began, a Pentagon communications official, Allison Barber, was heard asking one of them, ''Who are we going to give that [question] to?'' Barber later told reporters the soldiers were told only about broad themes Bush wanted to discuss, not specific questions.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said he did not think the soldiers had been told what they could or could not say. ''The troops can ask the president whatever they want,'' he said. ''They've always been free to do that.'' The president did not invite the soldiers to ask any questions, however, and none did. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita later issued a statement saying, ''On behalf of these fine young men and women, we certainly regret any perception that they were told what to say. It is not the case.'' The president spoke into a video screen to 10 U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi officer seated outdoors in Tikrit, Iraq, Saddam Hussein's hometown.

''What's your strategy, and how do you think it's going?'' Bush asked. Capt. Brent Kennedy of the Army's 42nd Infantry Division said U.S. and Iraqi forces were working together to secure more than 1,250 polling places for Saturday's vote. ''We're working right alongside with the Iraqis as they lead the way in securing these sites,'' Kennedy said. With Iraqi troop readiness at the center of the war debate, Bush's discussion with the troops was questioned by war critics including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who complained that it was ''highly scripted,'' and by military officers. ''Officers are upset that military people would be coached as to how to talk to the president,'' said a senior military official who spoke on condition of anonymity. ''It's against everything that people in uniform stand for.''

Editor's note, by Brandon
What can I say? It isn't enough that his war of choice has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of nearly 2000 young American Soldiers. Now he has to exploit them on top of it all. Please--no more rhetoric from the far right about decency and morality. Bush is not decent and he wouldn't know a moral if it bit him in the ass.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Groups Threaten to Boycott American Girl

I'm posting this just in case everyone didn't see it. The implications of this's quite scary...conservatives call a group who seeks the empowerment of young girls "a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group." Of course it is. Because all of the male right-wing pigs can't BEAR to see a woman have some rights. Equality has clearly always been out of the question, but why not throw in some civil-rights bans as well? Why don't we just all have dolls that brainwash little girls into thinking they must stay home, take care of the family, cook, clean, and lead mindless lives? Oh, wait...I think too many people (read: men) might jump at that and think it's a great idea. Besides...someone already came up with Barbie. First, it's birth control. Now it's empowerment. What's next? Full-body covering like in the Middle East? Excuse me while I throw up. And one more thing: doesn't anyone else find it ironic that they're boycotting a company named American Girl?

Do with it what you will, I'm too tired--and disgusted--to pick at it with a fine-toothed comb. Just thought you might like to know the latest in reactionary idiocy.

Groups Threaten to Boycott American Girl

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK - American Girl, manufacturer of a highly popular line of dolls and children's books, has become the target of conservative activists threatening a boycott unless the toy maker cuts off contributions to a youth organization that supports abortion rights and acceptance of lesbians.

The protest is directed at an ongoing American Girl campaign in which proceeds from sales of a special "I Can" wristband help support educational and empowerment programs of Girls Inc., a national nonprofit organization which describes its mission as "inspiring girls to be strong, smart and bold."

American Girl, whose often patriotic products have long had a loyal following among conservatives, issued a statement Friday defending its support of Girls Inc. and assailing the protest campaign.

"We are profoundly disappointed that certain groups have chosen to misconstrue American Girl's purely altruistic efforts and turn them into a broader political statement on issues that we, as a corporation, have no position," the statement said.

The Mississippi-based American Family Association, in a campaign launched Wednesday, is urging its members to demand that American Girl halt support for Girls Inc., which it called "a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group."

"Let American Girl know they are making a terrible mistake," AFA chairman Don Wildmon said in a statement. The AFA says it has more than 2.2 million members.

The Pro-Life Action League, a Chicago-based anti-abortion group, also is asking supporters to contact American Girl to express dismay. The league's executive director, Ann Scheidler, said her organization might call for a boycott of American Girl's products and organize picketing at its stores in Chicago and New York if the company doesn't sever ties with Girls Inc.

"Parents need to know that this effort to promote self-esteem among girls is not as innocent as it seems," Scheidler said. "While Girls Inc. has some good programs, they also support abortion, oppose abstinence-only education for girls, and condone lesbianism."

American Girl, a subsidiary of Mattel Inc., said the "I Can" initiative supports three specific Girls Inc. programs — building girls' skills in science and math, developing leadership skills, and encouraging athletic skills and team spirit.

"All of these aims are appropriate to our 7- to 12-year-old American Girl fans," the company said. "The American Girl brand exemplifies the values of wholesomeness and responsibility that we would expect any organization to commend."

Girls Inc., which traces its roots back to a center founded in Waterbury, Conn., in 1864, serves about 800,000 girls a year, many of them black or Hispanic and most from low-income families.

The "advocacy" page on its Web site lists some of the positions that roused conservative ire — for example a clear endorsement of the 1973 Roe v. Wade court decision establishing a woman's right to abortion.

Girls Inc. also supports a girl's right to have access to contraception and pledges support for girls dealing with issues of sexual orientation.

Joyce Roche, the president of Girls Inc., said the New York-based organization had never before been targeted by a protest campaign.

"We were taken aback," she said in a telephone interview Friday. "Our programs are well-respected. We're all about helping girls see possibilities and dream big dreams."

She said Girls Inc. takes positions on public policy issues if it believes women's rights and opportunities are at stake. "Our philosophy is that women should have the right to make decisions about themselves," Roche said.

One of the protest coordinators, American Family Association special projects director Randy Sharp, said the campaign was noteworthy because American Girl's products have long been favored by conservatives. Its dolls (full-sized models sell for more than $80) include a series from different eras of American history — such as Felicity, from the Revolutionary War, or Addy, who escapes from slavery during the Civil War.

"American Girl has won the trust of millions of conservative families," Sharp said. "It's very popular among the home school movement because of the values the company followed."

"Now we find they're teaming up with Girls Inc., which supports the very things we oppose. It's very troubling."

Sharp said the AFA was not yet ready to call for a boycott, but he predicted that many conservative families — including his own — would be reluctant to keep buying American Girl products. "I think no question this will have a financial impact on American Girl," he said.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005



From the Anal Retentive Press

By Brandon Alexander Geraghty Mackenzie


Brian Jonathan Sinclaire

GROVER’S MILL. After decades of debate, the question pertaining to life in outer space has finally been answered; sentient beings exist in other Solar Systems and they are not vulnerable to premeditated attacks by the Bush Administration Thanks in large part to the kind of bungling and outright ineptitude that we saw during the Bush War in Iraq and the debacle in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina, planet earth narrowly avoided a war with ET and his extra-terrestrial compatriots.

According to Secretary of War, Donald Rumsfeld, the trouble began on October 13 of this year when ET, the loveable Extra-Terrestrial, chartered a mother ship to contact his friend Elliot who he had befriended in 1983. United States radar installations indicated a large, unidentified object flying west towards the Pacific Coast at 6:35 AM , Thursday. Pentagon officials informed the President at 7:00 AM only moments after the first Lady talked him out from under their bed. Within moments after reading a classified memo titled “FIRST CONTACT WITH EXTRA TERRESTRIALS,” which the dyslexic president misread as “FIRST CONTACT WITH EXTRA TERRORISTS,” orders were handed down to initiate a conventional military strike against the advancing object,

“It wasn’t until the alien vessel proved invulnerable to our military might that we realized we were in serious trouble,” Rumsfeld noted. “It seems as if all conventional weapons are useless against their kind of technology.”

Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice was justifiably concerned. “My advice to the American people is that they stick their heads between their legs and kiss their asses goodbye,” Rice chuckled. “For those of us who never wondered nor cared what it was like to be an innocent Iraqi during Shock and Awe, I think we can safely assume that we are about to find out.”

Rumsfeld agreed. “We had no idea as to what they were talking about,” said Rumsfeld. “They kept repeating the same old nonsense about ‘ET phone home, ET phone home.’ It sounded like a declaration of war from intergalactic terrorists so we decided to go nuclear.”

The first nuclear weapons to be used in a time of war since 1945 were launched at 6:30 p.m. Eastern time, over Los Angeles, California with little effect to the aliens, although the entire city had been thoroughly flattened with a loss of approximately 850,000 to 960,000 million human fatalities. “Oops,” Rumsfeld chuckled. “They (the aliens) seem to have some kind of defense barrier which protects them from the harmful effects of nuclear weapons,”

When asked if the President would be taken to a secure location, the befuddled secretary inadvertently told the truth. “The President will go into hiding like he did during Vietnam and on the morning of 9-11.” Rumsfeld snickered. “What do you expect--character and courage? Just as soon as we launder the brown stains out of his Mickey Mouse boxers we’ll be heading for a secure Bunker in the Rocky Mountains. You’re on your own folks.”

Bush, of course agreed. “I’m better ahhhh, than the ahhhhh, typical bone-head who ahhhh voted for me,” the quivering President stammered. “I believe ahhhh, that ahhhh, Jesus ahhh ahhhh ahhhh chose me to ahhhh save my ahhhh asssss. The rest of you are ahhhh well ahhh…on your ahhh own. Bye!”

When asked if the President would actually go into hiding while innocent people were left to fend for themselves and die, Rumsfeld was unusually direct and to the point. “This has been our standing policy towards enlistees in Iraq and towards the poor in Louisiana. Why should this be any different?”

Ironically, by Sunday morning the aliens had yet to launch a counter offensive, leaving many to believe that their intentions were genuinely benevolent, a possibility which Rice, dismissed out of hand.

“We are dealing with a race of beings with no signs of external genitalia. This in my opinion, suggests that they may be homosexual or at least sexually ambiguous. Nor have they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. In the president’s opinion this makes them a morally inferior species.” Continuing in the same, delusional vein, Rice added, “The president considers it his duty as a born again lunatic to wipe out all beings who do not live up to his religious and sexual standards.”

To complicate the matter further, American scientists who attempted communication with the alien craft were summarily arrested and taken to secret FEMA internment camps. “The last thing we need is some rationalist trying to clear the fog of distrust and paranoia,” Rumsfeld snapped. "This administration thrives in darkness and secrecy--rather like a fungus in that regard."

Only when the aliens bypassed corporate control of the media and issued peace messages in every known earth language did the situation resolve itself. According to the aliens, their sole purpose was to initiate a reunion between Elliot and his beloved friend, ET. This, according to the aliens, would be the first time since November 1, 1983 that ET and his young friend had been offered a chance to meet under more benevolent circumstances.

“The last time I was here,” ET explained, “a bunch of goof balls from the Reagen administration, spied on an entire community, invaded everybody’s privacy, violated Elliot’s Constitutional Rights, kidnapped me, and subjected me to bizarre medical experiments. And while I haven’t undergone any poking and prodding this time, I see the Republicans have retained their same contempt for basic liberties that they had under RayGun.”

With the Bush Administration again humiliated, the President was forced to name Elliot as the official ambassador to the Alien Home world.

“With Elliot exiled on another planet,” Bush chuckled, “He ah, he ah, he ahhhhh won’t be able to ahhhh con-tam-in-ate the YEW-nited States with love, peace and ah –and ah-and ah, tol-ler-anssse.”

ET, however had other ideas. "The Aliens from Close Encounters are some of the best legal minds in the Galaxy," he told the crew at Entertainment Tonight. "I still haven't forgotten how I was treated more than 20 years ago. And I see how they treat people today. If I were the Republicans I'd start looking for lawyers who know their way around a War Crimes Tribunal."

Friday, October 07, 2005


Editors' Notes by Chris and Brandon With only a few modifications, this is the same post that appeared on THE YOUNG LIBERALS in November 2004.




By Brandon and Chris

November2004--Bush reelected Pretender and Thief..

January 2005--Inspired by voice of Jesus, Bush proposes the establishment of a Christian Republic.

February 2005- After a gay suicide bomber blows up a North Dakota cabin, Bush declares an emergency vote. Proposition 41A, which bans gay marriage, civil unions and homoerotic tendencies, is put on the ballot in all 50 states.

May 2005--Radicalized House of Representatives proposes Constitutional Amendment that would declare the United States a "Christian Republic."

June 2005--Senate introduces and passes the above Amendment.

September 2005--Following failed attempt to starve out minorities and low income residents in Hurricane ravaged New Orleans, Bush Regime diverts public attention to terrorism and social issues. Eye brows are raised when Sureme Court Justice Roberts makes an off the cuff remark about a "final soultion to the gay and lesbian problem."

October 2005--Congress Passes the Christian Protection Act which forbids nonchristians to teach in public and private schools. Act also bans gays and unwed mothers from serving in the same capacity while imposing heavy fines and penalties on those who advocate Separation of Church and State.

November 2005--Bush Administration uses executive powers to ban the teaching of Darwinism in public schools. Ban imposes heavy fines on those who fail to endorse Creationism as scientific fact..

December 2005--Congress declares homosexuality to be a crime against nature. Provides funding for the investigation and persecution of known and suspected gays and lesbians..

February 2006--Judaism declared a crime against the state..

March 2006--Islamic terrorist attacks on Houston, Atlanta, and Miami. In following weeks more than 50,000 Muslims are beaten and killed in the streets while law enforcement officers, under secret orders from John Ashcroft, either watch or take part in the actual beatings, Jerry Falwell proclaims the pogrom to be the "work of God in our world today.".

May 2006--Congress limits the right to hold state, local, or federal office to those individuals who can prove that they are either baptized or rebaptzied Christians. Bush, via presidential decree, claims the right to deicde what comprises a legitimate Christian sect.

June 2006-- Queer Eye for the Straight Guy stars are hunted and burned. Their makeover victims are executed at a public trial in Salem.

July 2006--The Ellen Degeneras Show is firebombed killing Ellen and the whole building. Rosie O'Donnel is forced back onto television claiming that her gayness was a joke and begins to bash gays. Former NJ governor McGreevey is found buried under Yankees Stadium..

August 2006--Congress passes the Anti-Blasphemy Act which criminalizes speech against the King James Bible, Christian symbols, or Christianity in general. Fines range from public humiliation to public torutre. Flogging, stretching, and the strapado are reintroduced as viable interrogation techniques.

November 2006--Heresy declared a capitol offense. More than 150,000 herectics are executed via hanging, burning, or flogging within the next four months. Several states pass their own versions of the former Purtian Blue Laws.

December 2006--To cash in on the prevailing wave of intolerance, major TV networks create reality-based programs which feature the live torture and alleged confessions of so called "witches." The most successful of these programs, Sinclair's "To Burn Or Not To Burn," eradicates mopre than 150 accused "sorcerers" during the first season alone.

January 2007--Tensions between Ultra Fundamentalist Right Protestants and Far Right Catholics begin to boil over when Bush declares that "God does not hear the prayers of a Papist." Catholics stage protests which are brutally repressed by Ashcroft's new CIA (Christian Intimidation Association).

February 2007- Gays are fofced to wear armbands with a darker rainbow which reads "FAG." "The No Gays Left Behind Act" restricts gays from attending straight schools. The "Help Gays Vote Act" prohibits gays from voting unless they are married (which is also prohibited). Jews are prohibited from owning land and the Straight Chamber of Culture is created excluding gays from the Arts. They can't serve in the military (revised).

March 2007- The "Keep Gays Safer Act" is passed, segregating public places and institutions. Water fountains, entrances etc are marked "Straight" or "Fag" Schools, concerts, and libraries are all segregated. A helicopter crashes into the Harvey Milk school in New York killing all its students.

April 2007- In Messy vs Ferguson, Antonin Scalia rules that segregated facilites are seperate but equal causing more segregation. The constitution is amended making gays 3/5 of a man or woman. They are prohibited from teaching, accounting and dentistry.

May 2007--Rosa Starks refuses to give her bus seat up to a straight person, she is arrested jump starting a neo gay rights movement. Gays are hosed down with fire hoses and chased by dogs throughout the cities. They begin McDonald sit ins.

June 2007- A black out engulfs the U.S after half 75% of the U.S's energy is depleted. The Son of Pam goes on a killing spree in NY killing 113 gays. He is later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Gays over 15 have to apply for identity cards. Passports stamped with large red G

July 2007- Bushwitz, Bushwald, Bushbruck,Bushausen, and Bushau camps are opened for gays, muslims, democrats, liberals, scientists, single mothers and 50% of the residents of San Francisco, 20% of Philadelphia and 33% of New York City.August 2007- The AAA (Anti-Gay, Anti-Gay, Anti-Guy) terrorizes the North on horseback donning white robes and masks, while burning crosses.

September 2007- Bushallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass. Jewish stores and shops are firebombed and looted. Painted with G's and Achtung Gay. Gays are fined for damages totaling over 10 million.November 2007- Forced labor decree for gays

December 2007- As gays march across the Brooklyn Bridge, a riot ensues with the NYPD killing 255 gays. Gay activist leader is killed on his hotel balcony after speaking to gay sewage workers. Riot ensues all over the U.S

January 2008- On New Years Day three gay activists go missing in Mississippi. They were pulled over for speeding, incarcerated in released to the AAA and killed.February 2008- The March on Washington, one million gays rally in D.C and gay leader gives famous "I Have a Vision" speech.

March 2008--After months of bitter unrest Bush declares himself to be the Second Coming of Christ. Declares America to be a Christian Theocracy, noting "deomcracy in our time was a terrible failure which saved no souls and did little to promote the conservative compassion of Christ."

Decenber 2008--Official beginning of the "Great Evangelical Schism." Civil War between Conservaive Protestant South and Reactionary Midwest devolves quickly into a blood soaked grab for power between the various Christian sects. After death of Vice president Cheney, John Ashcroft is promoted to office of Vice President. Ashcroft promptly declares Holy Crusade against all Non Protestants and Non Fundamentalists.

January 2009--Civil War during which multiple factions manage to execute 2.3 million witches, herectics, and homosexuals.

May 2009--Great Evangelical Schism turns nuclear as Donald Rumsfeld orders the use of WMDs. More than 17 million killed in nuclear stikes. 50 million additional lives claimed by plague and famine. Situation complicated by use of biological and chemical weapons against civilian populations.

February 2009- In an attempt to stop the escalating degeneration of Western Civilization, The Bush Regime substitutes the Book of Leviticus for the United States Constitution.

July 2009--America descends into chaos despite forces of theocracy and tyranny

August 2009--Disturbed by increasing ecological damage and global instability from Great Evangelical Schism, the European Union with assistance from Russia, China and South America, invades war torn American Republic. Southwest conceded back to Mexico. Michigan, Maine, New York, and Wisconsin petition the United Nations to join Canadian Union. Petition subesequtnly granted. Florida claimed by Cuba. Former leaders Bush and Ashcroft subsequently put on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. During cross examination at his trial, Bush, in a delusional, paranoid state, openly admits that he is the AntiChrist. Claims that Ashcroft is the False Prophet and that Anne Coulter is the Whore of Bablyon.

December 2009--Remaining territory of American Republic is temporarily partitioned by England, France, Germany, Russia, and Brazil. Provisional capitol moved to Chicago, Illinois..

January 2010--Christian Fundamentalism and the Republican Party are banned in the same way Nazism was banned in Germany after World War II. Schools and society in general are officially DeRepubicanized.

February 2010--Following public executions of convicted war criminals, reparations proceed at an accelerated rate. Environmental cleanup initiated in major american Urban Centers. International Corporations like Haliburton and Bechtel forced to fund the reparations. Beginning of the Post Neocon Enlightenment.

Editor's note, by Brandon Alexander Geraghty MacKenzie

This was the first post that I made on the Young Liberals. In many ways it remins a favorite. The material Chris added only made it even more prophetic and more humorous. I of course, had to add an early line about the katrina debacle.

Brandon G.

Thursday, October 06, 2005


Editor's note:

The following is the text of W's recent speech to the American People dated 6 October 2005. The President's delusions and/or prevarications appear in black. Our corrections appear in true blue italics immediately after the President's all to frequent breaks from reality and honesty.

Kyle "A.J." Kilpatrick

by Kyle, Brandon, Enlightenment, and Advocate 1

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (They're not children, you yutz!) (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan (yawnnnnn) set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.

Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; sometimes we aided right wing dictatorships; sometimes we overthrew democractically elected governments; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.

Excuse me, Mister Resident, but it was the Reagen and Bush 1 Administrations which had a huge hand in creating the Islamic terrorism to which you are so foolishly and deceptively trying to link to Iraq. Need we remind you of the fact that Osama Bin Laden was seen as an Anti-Communist "freedom fighter" while he was waging a terrorist campaign against the Soviet Invaders of Afghanistan during the late 1970s and 1980s? Just thought you might like to know, Sir, that it was your daddy who--at least in part-- helped make Osama Bin Laden the danger that he is today.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. (Is this a self-criticism of the "W" Administration itself?) Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)

Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.

I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.

Get on with it already!

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. (Americans in uninform rising to duty--that's more than you did, bucko!) And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.(Applause.)

Yes, but what you seem to forget is that our calling was to terminate the brutal regime in Afghanistan, which President Reagen and your father helped to create!

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. (To the degree that you continue to exploit them without shame, decency or embarassment.) Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. (Yes--even after you kept inisting that your foolish, self-defeating policies were making the world safer!) In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. (Meaning what? That your policy in Iraq has created more terrorism?)

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. (Some call it American Imperialism descending to the level of the enemy it fears the most.) Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics. (The same might be said about the Radical Christian Right which is trying to undermine Constitutional provisions here in the United States in an attempt to create a world wide Christian/American Empire.)

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world. ( I'm sure that at some point you will compare this war to World War II.--as you have in the past. But Mister Resident, the type of enemy you just described is nothing, nothing, like what we saw in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan. Nor is it like a Communist State. The enemies we fought during World War II and during the Cold War were totalitarian regimes with highly centralized political power. You have just confessed that military solutions may not be effective against an enemy which is dramatically different in structure from our World War II foes. Indeed, Mister resident, you have now contradicted yourself. You have just pointed out a major set of differences between our World War II foes and the foes your daddy helped to create. Which makes us wonder--do you ever think about what you do think about?)

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences. ( Again, Mister Resident, you fail to self-examine. Are you not calling on our young people to fight and die? The only difference sir, is that while Osama, evil though he may be, has the honesty to admit that he wants young people to die, your administration depends on an all volunteer military which is using underhanded recruiting techniques in American Schools. Moreover, the Army's latest TV ads look like paid propaganda for an ROTC summer camp. Perhaps the United States Army would like to use lines such as "SIGN UP TO DIE IN IRAQ?" in future commercials? Just a suggestion, Mister Resident.)

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. (And, dear sir, just who has made this possible? Saddam Hussein was a butcher, that is true, but let's not forget that he was Mister Reagen's butcher, your daddy's butcher, during the Iran/Iraq war. And I shall repeat a previous point. You, Mister Resident, have turned Iraq into a training ground for international terrorists by removing the butcher who, for all intents and purposes, provided a certain degree of stability in that particular area of the Mid East.Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror. (Yes , now that you have blundered into the war and proven that we are unable to provide the required stability.)

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation. (I will only repeat the central point which you continue to miss--your invasion created the necessary instability in which that could happen. Do you ever, ever, take personal responsibility for anything?)

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. (Or perhaps impossible, but you can't quite admit that, can you?)Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. (In much the same way, you, Mister Resident, have thrived on fear.) The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. (This Mister resident, is a bald faced lie. Once again, you are attempting to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein, and it just doesn't work. The delusions that you note to support this fanatasy are next to meaningless. The truth of the matter was that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were deadly enemies. Just how in the Sam Hill they end up as allies is beyond the understanding of a rational mind. But then again, who said the Bush Administration was in any way rational?) The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. (You know as well as we do that Russia has her own problems with Islamic militants--or rather separatists-- in Chechnya. Do you really think the American people are a stupid as you and your cabinet are?)

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago (I don't suppose you ever heard the old saying by George Santayana--you know, the one about people learning history of they don't have to relive it?) In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (This, regretably, reveals the one-dimensional thinking of this administration. The fact of the matter is that all forms of human behavior, even those at a national level, even those involving large groups of people, are based on motives. Grievances, my dear Mister Resident, are motives.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

(Note the contradiction from past rhetoric in the above paragraph. One minute the terrorists are like Nazis. The next they're loosely organized like an multi-national corporation. And now they're like Communists. Can this man ever make up his mind about anything?"

Like the ideology of communism, (Joe McCarthy rides again!) our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. (As you have done with our soldiers in your War of Choice?) And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, (like you do in Iraq?) and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

In many ways the last two sentences are a self-description of the Bush Administration's intentions here at home and abroad. The last I knew, many conservative Christians believe that women should be subserviant to men. The Far Right is in a constant war against reproduction rights, including the right to use [now] legal contraception. As for censorship...How many times have we seen right wing goons burning records and CDs to stomp out the evils or rock and roll? Why do born again fanatics often resort to stealing "offensive" materials from public libraries? Why are public and school libraries so frequently threatened with attempts at censorship from self-imposed, right wing moralists? For that matter, why do we not concentrate on the American Taliban here at home befgore we find ourselves in a Christianized version of Afghanistan? The oppression you fail to fight at home--read the Bush Regime--may be tyranical in its own right.)

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. (This from the party and president which practices economic Social Darwinism as a virtue?) Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." (Well, sir, you did skip out on Vietnam, so know that at least one American is a coward.)But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Might the same be said about your daddy and President Raygun when they were supporting right wing death sqauds in Central America?)(Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. (But Mister Resident, the same might be said of the Christian Right--which is neither Christian nor right about anything--here at home. Do not many of your supporters have problems with the right to privacy? Are you not trampling on Constitutional liberties in the names of safety and security? Is your administration not one of the most reactionary political entities to come down the pike in decades? Not to mention one of the most secretive? It seems to me, Mister Resident, that this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.) The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. (Of course, the same might be said about right wing, strict constructionists who want to read the Constitution as it was read in 1787--when women and 18-year-olds could not vote; when Blacks were counted as 3/5 human, and, when state legislatures elected by our United States Senators) And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Could it be that you and your ilk have, by this particular statement, excluded yourselves?) (Applause.)

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. (Another lie, Mister Resident. You all but ran on a platform in which you promised to go after Saddam Hussein. The Downing Street Memos prove that you were looking for at least a part of this conflict, the one in Iraq. Indeed, you dropped the ball on the required war, the one in Afghanistan, to go after the man who threatened your daddy. Or was ot to create a Century for a New American Empire? Oh well. What ever. You did not ask for half of the struggle--the one which you are neglecting in Afghanistan. But you did ask for Iraq.)

Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. (If you had been patient and had your ducks in line militarily, and actually taken some advice from your own military you wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.)

Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence. (Ah yes. The Grand Coalition. The last I knew they were bailing out like rats from a sinking ship. I believe we have enough coalition partners now to form a baseball team--or am I being generous?)

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. (Translated into modern English the bloody damned terrorists have succeeded--you are reacting to their tactcs, not taking proactive measures.) We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. (Hope you did a better job than you did with rearranging FEMA!)

We're (re)acting, along with the governments from many countries, to (form a baseball tournament)destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia. (Some things never change. In November 1940 at a gala banquet in Berlin, Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop told his Russian counterpart, Vyacheslav Molotov that England had already been beaten. During the banquet, the British Royal Air Force decided to bomb Berlin. Those in attendance went to a bomb shelter, prompting Molotov to ask "If that is so, why are we in this shelter and whose are these bombs which fall?" Many years later, when the "beaten Iraqis" failed to throw flowers and candy at American invaders "W Incorporated" and our corporate dominated-media tried to cloud the issue with meaningless rhetoric about restored electricity and rebuilt schools. Prompting any SANE American to ask: "If these so- called accomplishments are so profound, and if the Iraq is so damned secure, then whose mortars and car bombs are blowing up our soldiers?")

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder. (Yes, yes, we have turned another corner. Someone should tell these people that if you keep turning he corner in the same direction long enough you eventually end up where you started from.)

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.

This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands. (This sounds all right on the surface, but there is an element of irony here. The Administration is hardly in favor of any kind of nuclear disarmament. It has however, advoated a nuclear, first strike option and talked about bunker busting nuclear warheads. So, we can't exactly say that our Doctor Strangelove Administration is opposed to nuclear devastation.)

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account. (What is this? A lowering of the standards which might prevent future invasions? This is too easy. A president could merely claim that a nation is protecting terrorists and launch a first strike. It SOUNDS reasonable but it is actually another way to concentrate more hands into the office of the United States President.)

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. (We've been hearing this song and dance for more than two years now, and it sounds just as disingenuous now as it did to begin with.)

And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve. (That's right, Mister Resident. But for your war of choice, only the lower classes are being asked to sacrifice. In World War II we raised taxes. We bought War Bonds. We conserved. We recycled everything from rubber and metal to fabric. We rationd gas, sugar, eggs, iron etc. In this half baked [mis]administration we funded an expensive war, gave tax cuts to the rich, and did nothing to promote conservation until a Hurricane threatened our national fuel supply And now they want to cut programs for the weakest and most desperate of our fellow citizens. From an economic view you must wonder--just who does Bush see as the enemy? Terrorists? Or lower class Americans and minorities?

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)
As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

(Listening to this guy talk about democracy is a little like listening to Typhoid Mary give a lecture on public health. Remember the Republican goons who stopped the ballot count in Florida? Remember the fact that he was SELECTED by our own Supreme Court? Yeah. I do too. Moreover, the issue that Bush fails to address here is that American troops may actually contribute to the instability that we now see in Iraq. Bush has yet to understand that the Iraqis had not real experience with democracy. Nor did they experience the historical movements which led to Western Democracy. They did not have a Reformation. They did not have an Enlightenment. Likewise, Bush failed to understand that Iraq had basically been thrown together by Europeans with little regard for ethnic background. What you have today is an extrmely tribalistic society which practices vengence as a virtue. Every time an innocent Iraqi [please don't tell us this never happens] you are, for all intents and puproses, creating more terrorists. Unless of course these innocent victims have no brothers, children, cousins, fathers etc, but somehow I don't think that is the case.) As for Iraqi government, what can I say? This wonderful Constitution Bush keeps touting is hardly fair to women. It has major flaws, and the argument over federalism is no where near settled.)

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? ("A simple question." Perhaps the question is too simple? You wouldn't be worried about Bin Laden if you hadn't convinced yourself that the Iraqi people would throw candy and flowers. Perhaps the Demander and Thief thinks it is better to slowly bleed ourselves dry while the violence escalates on a daily basis? Another example of "faith based thought" instead of rational thinking.)

Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence. (Another admission that you removed a source of stability with no plan to replace it. Of course, if you had only decapitated the Iraqi Army, purged it of the worst Ba'athists and used the Iraqi military for your own purposes, you might have seen a better outcome. Instead, you sent the army home with no pay and created even more hostility towards the American-led invasion force. In short--you made an already unstable situation even more unstable.)

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. (And in what "La-La Land do you reside, Mister Resident?)

The enemy is never tired (even though our soldiers are exhausted) never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.) (Empty, meangless rhetoric--right up there with Hitler in the bunker screaming "THE WAR IS NOT LOST!" while Russian troops poured ionto Germany.)

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure. (And what would you do if your democratic Iraqis decide they want stronger ties with Iran? Would you be content to see the Iraqi south anex itself to Iran? That is a risk here--you DO know that. Don't you?)

America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people.
(Same question as above.)

We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.) (Of course there have been times--like during your daddy's reign with President Raygun,--when we were associated with repressive regimes.)

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith. (But Sir, the Koran, like the Bible contradicts itself. There are chapters which promote violence, repression, and second class citizenship for women--as the Radical Christian Right knows all to well. Besides, our actions tend to speak louder than words.)

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. (Yes, and the President is the Mayor of Kabul; the poppies are back, and the warlords are back in power. This is not progress--it is feudalism after you dropped the ball.)

Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country (As have more than 2000 American soldiers--not to mention thousands more left with permanent disabilities and injuries.) )These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them. (Winston Church said it better in many ways, but since you seem to have contradicted years of Saddam equals Hitler rhetoric, you really can't go there, can you?)
We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will prevail. (Applause). (Excuse, me Sire, but which way do you want it? This entire paragraph is self contradictory.

May God bless you. (Applause.)

My God, that the best the Demander and Thief can do? This is old wine in a new bottle. Only now the wine has turned into vinegar.