The Bush Oil Administration

Bush and Cheney are oil men tied closely to the oil industry. Actually, Bush is a failed oil man, who had to be bailed out by his daddy's friends. But together, the prezident and his sidekick, Cheney, represent the oil industry.

Buzzflash points us back to a Drudge report of June 2000. In the year 2000, the price of oil was on everyone's minds. In 1999, it hovered around $10 a barrel. By the spring of 2000, it had doubled. Whose fault was that? George W. Bush said the blame had to be place squarely on Bill Clinton. Al Gore said it was the fault of the oil companies.

It is now 2008 and Bush has been in office over seven years. The price of oil is over $140 a barrel and heading up. Exxon-Mobil, along with the other major oil outfits, are posting record-high earnings.

The other day an energy summit was held in Saudi Arabia where the oil producers blamed market speculators for the rising costs, while consumers complained there isn't enough oil being produced.

Ironically, when the Saudis pledged to increase their production by 200,000 barrels a day, because the speculators expected that pledge, the price of oil went up!

This is called gouging and it is happening because of the U.S. energy policy put in place by the Bush/Cheney gang of oil gangsters.

It really isn't hard to figure out. Ask yourself who profits under the Bush/Cheney energy policies. Follow the money.

Or, as Buzzflash puts it: "Bush has failed all of us, but he is the toast of the town as far as Big Oil is concerned, still protecting their right to gouge us and profiteer away, as we suffer at the pump.

Of even more concern, is that after seven years of Bush mismanagement we still have no viable policy in place to develop alternative energy sources, other than increasing the number of dirty coal plants and that is not a policy, that's simply a gift to the coal industry at the expense of the environment.

Swift boaters not too swift

You remember the Swift-boaters, those nasty assholes who plastered the country with advertising smearing John Kerry back during the 2004 elections. They're still around and we can expect more of the same between now and November.

The 2004 nasties did not include all of those who served in Vietnam on Swift boats. In fact, about 3,600 men served on about 110 Swift boats. It was fearsome work and very dangerous. "They conducted some of the most harrowing missions of the war."

The Swift boats, also called Patrol Craft Fast, were made of aluminum, and were 50 feet long. They carried one officer, five enlisted men and a Vietnamese interpreter. Because of their size, they could maneuver the shallow waters of the Vietnamese rivers and their job was to attack the North Vietnamese as they filled their own craft with arms and other supplies.

John Scholl, a Swift boat officer from May of 1968 to May of 1969, said "The bad guys shot you on the way up the river, and they knew you had to come back down."


Today because of the 200 who signed the letter that formed the basis for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 the rest of the Swift boat veterans feel they are being castigated for the actions of the few. William Miller served on a Swift boat and he's upset. "I'm proud of what I did, and all the guys I was with. Now somebody says 'Swift boat,' and it's a whole different meaning. They don't associate it with the guys we lost. That's a shame."

Well, it's also a shame that the 200 signed the letter, and fabricated lies about Senator Kerry! It's interesting to note that recently a group of vets who served with Kerry "took up the challenge by T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, that he would give a million dollars to anyone who could disprove anything in the group's campaign against Kerry."

Almost all of the accusations against Kerry have been disproven by Navy documents. Swift boat veterans also amassed other materials and other records which disproved the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Not surprisingly, the snaky T. Boone Pickens has refused to pay.

What I would say to those 3,200 Swift boaters who were not directly involved in the smear of Kerry, is that it's too damn late to get your good name back. Where were you in 2004? How many of you stood up and denounced the 200 back-stabbers who should have been called "Swift Boat Liars for Bush"?


Enter John McCain, our "hero." It is reported that four years ago, McCain denounced the Swift Boaters for Truth and their sleazy ads. He called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable."

Now, McCain has accepted $70,000 in donations from the top backers of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (later known as SwiftVets and POWS for Truth).

Well, why not? McCain, as we know, will do and say anything to get elected! A campaign spokesman for McCain wrote in an e-mail "that McCain accepted the money because the donors are 'interested in supporting (his) agenda of reform, prosperity and peace.'"

Wow, what logic! Let's extend that out. Let's say that Osama bin Laden, believing in McCain's "agenda of reform, prosperity and peace," sent old John a million dollars. That would be just fine! No problemo. Thanks Osama!

And who are these upstanding citizens who tried to destroy the reputation of a true Vietnam hero, Senator John Kerry?

One is an ultra-right Repugnican, a Texas builder by name of Bob Perry. In 2004, he gave almost $4.5 million buckaroos to the Swift boaters. Another is Sam Fox, named by Bush last year to be the U.S. ambassador to Belgium. Fox gave the Swift boat liars $50,000 in 2004. I guess the ambassadorship to Belgium is the least Bush could do for old foxy Fox. An interesting sidelight is that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee intended to reject Fox's appointment to Belgium, but Bush outfoxed the committee by naming Fox using a recess appointment.

Another of McCain's current donors is Aubrey McClendon, from Oklahoma City, an "energy" guy like Mr. Bush. He gave the Swift boaters a quarter of a million dollars in 2004. McClendon, even more foxy than Fox, donated $2,300 to McCain and Obama this year. And he says he doesn't know who he's going to support. I'll give you one guess.

And finally, McCain, not too swift and not too foxy, included a retired Air Force colonel by name of Bud Day in a conference call with reporters to defend McCain's military service. Day appeared in the 2004 Swift boat ads.

Oops!

David Vitter and Larry Craig - The Hypocritcal Duo

Again, just when you think you've heard and seen it all, David Vitter and Larry Craig hang their hats on a bill sponsored by a Mississippi Repugnican Senator, Roger Wicker, which would add an amendment to our constitution stating that marriage is to be defined as between a man and a woman.

Or, as Dan Sweeney put it at The Huffington Post:

"I mean, really now. How much further down the rabbit hole can we go? A man who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in propositioning an undercover police office for anonymous sex in a bathroom, and a man who allegedly had a diaper fetish exerting their moral authority over the rest of us. How can it have come to this?"

Sweeney is a bit miffed at this blatantly hypocritical duo:

"Perhaps we should send a message to Vitter and Craig, because obviously, it hasn't hit them yet: You. Do. Not. Get. To. Tell. Us. How. To. Live. Any. More. You lost the right to moralize about the same time you strapped on a pair of adult diapers and/or opened your stance a little too wide. People who moralize lead first by example."

Sweeney concludes:

"Jesus, I'm almost embarrassed for them. This liberal blogging thing just isn't fun anymore. ... It seems like the opposition these days consists of little more than sweaty-palmed, mouth-breathing sex addicts or else unapologetic morons whose chief pet peeve in the world appears to be anymore more intelligent than algae."

Methinks Sweeney is right on!

The Lame McCain

This first item comes from Isaac Fitzgerald, which you can read here.

Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia and an ex-Marine, was successful in getting his new G.I. Bill, which provides additional education benefits to those who serve in the U.S. military, passed by a margin of 75-22.

When he asked his colleague, John McCain, to support the bill, McCain said no. McCain went on to attack the bill as "dangerous" because it would entice people to leave the military at a time when we desperately need them.

My impression at the time was that McCain was an elitist officer who just didn't give a damn about the troops in the trenches no matter his "heroic" status and his service record and his claims of support.

Now, in a blinding moment of hypocrisy, McCain, at a town hall event, said:

"I'm happy to tell you that we probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them an increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain amount of time than (sic) they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or (sic) children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing (sic) people of staying (sic) in the military."


The second item derives from Booman and the Booman Tribune and you can read it all here.

In an interview with the Orange County Register, McCain was asked when he last pumped his own gasoline and how much the gas cost.

"Oh, I don't remember," he said. "Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters."

Booman responds: "I thought John McCain was pushing a summer gas tax holiday. I guess someone just told him to propose that without informing him that gasoline is edging towards $5 a gallon."

Martin Wisckol from the Orange County Register then asked McCain, "...What will make you different from George W. Bush."

McCain said, "My vision for America."

Wisckol suggested that he be specific.

McCain responded: "Climate change. Spending. The torture of prisoners. There are numerous other issues that we've been in disagreement on in the past. Spending is one of the fundamental one. (sic) Torture of prisoners. Addressing climate change effectively. Just to name a few."


Good god! Climate change? What has McCain proposed in response to the alarming and immediate threat posed by global warming? Spending? McCain flip-flopped to support making Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich permanent. Torture? Please. McCain voted to allow Bush to continue to waterboard whoever the hell he felt like waterboarding!

Or, as Booman said: "John McCain is going around glibbly accusing the President of the United States and the leader of his own party of torturing prisoners. And the story that everyone focuses on is the price of gas. Modern America, ladies and gentleman, where the discourse isn't just debased, it's immoral."

Afghanistan - Reprising Disaster

Official spokespersons for the Bush government have repeatedly told the American public that things are going well in Afghanistan. The "coalition," made up of US and NATO soldiers, is keeping the Taliban in check, providing security for a government which is somewhat less than democratic, helping to open schools, and overall -- well, except for the killing of schoolteachers and villagers and women who dare attend the opened schools - it's not a bad picture.

Oh, we forgot to mention the soldiers who have been killed, and their families, and their friends.


Why are we in Afghanistan? To kill Osama? I don't think so. We haven't even been looking for Osama! Ask the next person you meet on the street why our soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan. I would guess he/she won't have a clue.

In any case, we haven't really worried about Osama. We've been too busy killing people for non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That whole business got Osama really pissed, so he sent his al-Qaeda terrorists to cause trouble in Iraq (where they weren't in residence before the Bush invasion).

One of the things you can be sure about the Bush government is that those involved learn nothing from history, or from their own mistakes. Actually, according to Bush, the Bush government does not make mistakes.


Anyone with a modest knowledge of Middle Eastern history or a modicum of common sense would know that military action against insurgent forces in Afghanistan is an act of insanity. Notice how the words "knowledge" and "common sense" automatically eliminates G.W. Bush and cohorts.

In Afghanistan these days, the insurgents are resurgent. Journalists speak of "the Taliban's growing strength," and point to the June jailbreak which freed 886 prisoners, the infiltration of a "strategic" valley near Kandahar, and the "pace of attacks" by the Taliban which is up by 40 percent this year.

In the past two months, more U.S. and NATO soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq!

What will really make you glad you got out of bed today is the fact that we have no strategy for success in Afghanistan!


In the 20th century, many countries felt it was their right to meddle in Afghan affairs. Most of them learned quickly such meddling was a serious mistake. Before Russia became Russia again, and our sort-of friend, Russia plus other countries were called the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics - the Soviet Union.

On August 7, 1978, the Soviet Union saw fit to invade Afghanistan using its 40th Army as the spearhead. The invasion was an unmitigated disaster and has since been nicknamed the Soviet's "Vietnam War." But the Soviets, like the Bush government, often fail to learn from their mistakes.

Russian involvement in Afghanistan goes back to the 19th century, to the Tsarist expansion launched in opposition to Britain's interests in the region. Between the years 1955 to 1978, the Soviet Union sent "billions in economic and military aid ... to Afghanistan."

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, vicious political infighting was going on. King Mohammad Azhir Shah ruled from 1933 to 1973. During this time, an opposition Marxist party, the PDPA, continued to grow in strength. In 1973, a former prime minister by name of Daoud took over "in an almost bloodless coup." He ended the monarchy but was stymied at other reforms by the PDPA.

"On April 17, 1978, the Agfhan Army, which had been sympathetic to the PDPA cause, overthrew and executed Daoud along with members of his family." The Secretary General of the PDPA , Nur Muhammad Taraki, became president of the Revolutional Council and Prime Minister of the rather inaptly named "Democratic Republic of Afghanistan."

But the government remained divided and civil war ensued by the middle of 1978. A "palace shootout" in September 1979 ended in Deputy Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin grabbing power. Amin immediately "moved against his opponents in the PDPA and the growing rebellion."

If this seems rather confusing, it is. And it gets worse


The Soviets, as far back as 1919, began to send various forms of aid -- gold rubles, small arms, ammo, and some planes -- to support Afghan resistance against the British. That type of involvement continued until finally, in 1978, the Soviets invaded to try to put things right from their perspective.

That invasion led to a nine-year disaster that was, some think, instrumental in the final breakdown of the USSR. The Soviets did much damage, but were unable to to crush the mujahideen insurgents, who relied on sabotage, land mines and various terrorists acts, and then fled into the mountains.

The mujahideen knocked out bridges, closed major roads, attacked convoys, disrupted the electrical power system and industrial production, went after police stations, government buildings, movie theaters, as well as Soviet military posts and air bases.

About 620,000 Soviet soldiers were involved in the Afghan war (although only about 80-104,000 were in the country at any one time). They lost a total of over 14,000 people as well as 470,000 sick and wounded. They Soviet military arsenal was also devastated.

Over one million Afghans were killed and 5 million Afghans fled the country. "In the 1980s, one of every two refugees in the world was an Afghan." The war also left 1.2 million Afghans disabled and 3 million maimed or wounded (the latter mostly noncombatants.)

By mid-1987, the Soviets said they had "had it," and would begin bringing its troops home. Sibghatullah Mojaddedi was chosen to lead what was called the "Interim Islamic State of Afghanistan." Mojaddedi met with George H.W. Bush (Bush I) which was considered "a diplomatic victory for the Afghan resistance."


During the Soviet/Afghan war, the U.S. was very involved in supplying aid to the mujahideen. It began in 1981 under President Reagan, most of which was shuffled through Pakistan by the efforts of Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman and the CIA (you know, to keep the whole business from the prying eyes of the public and Congress.)

Other countries were also involved in supplying aid to the rebels, including Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and China. In and amongst this aid were US-made FIM-92 Stinger and anti-aircraft missile systems which were used to shoot down Soviet Air Force planes.

The U.S. via the CIA became even more deeply involved as the war dragged on. The director of the CIA, William Casey gave orders to begin programs "for training Afghans in techniques such as car bombs and assassinations," as well as how to instigate raids into the USSR itself.

(Such techniques, of course, along with the weapons provided by the US, have been turned around and used on our own soldiers in the current civil war.)

Very involved in the mujahideen was a man named Osama bin Laden, who had left a life of wealth and luxury in Saudi Arabia to help fight the Soviets. While he may have actually fought in a battle, his main role was moving money around (including some of his own funds) and providing logistical support to the anti-Soviet fighters.

Rumors abound that the CIA was directly involved in working with bin Laden, but the CIA denies this. Really. I think in spy-speak that's called "disinformation."


When the Soviets left, the civil war continued.


The civil war continues today. Only now, in spite of the Soviet lesson, United States soldiers along with NATO troops are dying.

Nothing much changes. Just the leaders, who seem to be eternally stupid, eternally greedy for power or oil or both, eternally war-mongers.

It is unlikely that this situation will ever change. There are just too many people involved for whom war is a money-making operation. Our own Pentagon and Defense Department and all of their subsidiaries who make weapons and the machinery of war will never find peace to be "normal" or satisfactory.

Peace, you see, means they go out of business. War is their business. And under the Bush government, war is forever.

Praise god and pass the ammunition, for we're "soldiers of the cross," we are the saints marching into the valley of death.

Dem bones, dem bones, dem dog bones

(Photo is of the mythical "chains" of the mythological St. Peter in
the church of St. Peter in Chains in Rome)

I love this one.

According to Answers.com: "Before the reform of the General Roman Missal today was the feast of St. Peter's Chains. It celebrated the dedication of the basilica of St. Peter ad Vincula in Rome which was built in about 432 on the Esquiline Hill in Rome and consecrated on August 1."

Now the important part: "It was also the commemoration of the Holy Maccabees. The seven Machabees (sic) were brothers martyred with their mother under Antiochus Epiphanes in about the year 150 before Christ. There is an account of their wonderful death in the Old Testament. Their relics venerated at Antioch in the time of St. Jerome, were translated to Rome in the sixth century, to the church of St. Peter's Chains."

Holy Hanukkah! I didn't know that!

Well, the story about Antioch may be fishy. No one really knows how or when these bones got to Rome. Even after they were supposedly "translated" to Rome, Antioch and Modin also claimed possession!

You're gonna love it. "In the 1930s it was discovered that the 7 bones at Rome believed to be theirs (the Maccabees) were in reality canine remains."

The Church therefore "immediately" withdrew them "from the veneration of the faithful."


So, for 1500 years, faithful followers of the Roman church knelt before dog bones to worship and adore them. The word is "venerated," which, no matter how the Romanists try to fudge things, means "worship and adore" in the minds of most Catholics.

Or as one skeptic asks: "If the Christian God does exist, then why did not the so called (sic) Holy Spirit see fit to inform some high ranking (sic) cleric that his flock was venerating dog bones instead of pre-Christian martyr bones?"

Arf!

You can read more here.

The castrating governor - Bobby Jindal

(Photo by Lee Celano, New York Times/Redux)

Thanks to Agitprop for pointing us to this story.

Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana, an elected mistake that the good citizens of Louisiana will rue for many years. Jindal is an ultra-Right, ultra-conservative, extremist Roman Catholic exorcist screwball who thinks that Intelligent Design is science and should be taught in Louisiana schools. And those are his good points!

From the Louisiana Advocate: "Rising Republican star Bobby Jindal signed legislation allowing judges to force convicted rapists to undergo chemical castration."

Jindal said, "I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters' brutal acts."

The law, Senate Bill 144, got Jindal's OK "on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana cannot execute people who rape children under the age of 12."


Two things: One wonders if this "rising Republican" moron realizes that rape is not a crime of passion but of violence. They don't rape women because they have balls, they rape women because they don't have enough balls to relate to women in a normal manner. Castration will not stop the violence against women. In fact, it may make it worse! Instead of putting a "stop to these monsters' brutal acts," he may well have provided the motive for increasing them!

That's the thing about so many of Republicans; they keep making bad things worse. Bush decides god wants him to remove the bad guy, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq and before you know it, five years have gone by, and we've lost over 4,000 soldiers with many thousands more maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dads and moms and kids have died in the streets, millions have fled the country, an enemy that did not exist before the invasion is now resurgent and violence continues in spite of our 150,000 "peace-keepers" occupying the country. Is Iraq better off now than in 2003? Ask the Iraqis. As many of them had said, at least then they had water to drink and electricity. Now all they have is bombs and death!

Don't you just love this party of "family values?"

What do we do with the monsters who put this grab for oil in motion - Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and Powell, et. al.?

The Republicans want to do away with abortions so they promote programs like "abstinence only" which end up creating more abortions!

And now, Bobby Jindal, rising in the Republican ranks to cause even more devastation.

Ugh!

McCain meets Graham but no cigar?

(Photo by the Associated Press)

Yesterday, June 29, John McCain held a meeting with Billy Graham and his son Franklin in Montreat, North Carolina. Supposedly McCain thought he would be meeting only with Franklin due to Billy's declining health, but Billy was surprisingly present.

McCain said they had "a very excellent conversation." He also said it wasn't about obtaining their endorsements. He left still not knowing, he claimed, if the Grahams would vote for him. "I didn't ask for their votes." McCain praised them as "great leaders."


There's a story behind the story. On June 9, a blogger connected with the Dallas Morning News wrote that the McCain campaign was trying to arrange a meeting between McCain and Billy Graham. Reportedly, McCain "had turned down such a meeting." That was not true, said the McCain campaign. They were, in fact, "dealing directly with Franklin Graham to make it [a meeting with Billy] happen."

Here's the story behind that. Doug Wead, a former religious liaison with the Bushites, along with a Fort Worth minister by name of Brian Jacobs, had "been trying to broker a meeting between McCain and Graham.

"In a letter to Jacobs, the McCain camp said it appreciates the offer. 'Unfortunately, I must pass along our regrets and do not foresee an opportunity to add this event to our calendar.'"

McCain's inability to "foresee an opportunity" to sit down with Billy Graham did not sit well with the so-called "evangelicals."


MotherJones contacted "Billy Graham's PR shop" and received the following statement from Larry Ross, Billy Graham's "director of media and public relations."

"It would be highly unusual and out of character for Mr. Graham to initiate such a meeting, and there has been no contact between the McCain campaign and his office. In fact, Mr. Graham has not met or been in contact with any candidates during the current primary process. If he had, it has been his personal policy through the years to avoid partisanship by meeting with representatives from both parties to address spiritual concerns."

Then Ross appended the above statement to note that he had learned of attempts by a couple of people to broker a meeting with Billy Graham, but Billy did not know of it. "Apparently it was their indirect and unofficial involvement that was declined." This is confusing as it sounds like Billy Graham's outfit declined a meeting.

But MotherJones, I think, got it rightt: "...McCain didn't turn down a meeting with Billy Graham. He turned down a meeting brokered by Doug Wead and Brian Jacobs."

Thus, the evangelicals can untie the knots in their shorts.

Or not. The McCain camp "responded elsewhere" by saying, "Our campaign has been working directly with Reverend Franklin Graham's office to facilitate an important meeting between John McCain and Reverend Billy Graham. ..."


When one deals with political types (and this includes the Grahams) one finds that misleading statements are SOP. McCain evidently didn't want to look like he was pandering for Graham's blessing like he did with Hagee and Parsley and Graham's camp didn't want to look like they were easily seduced.

At any rate, the meeting took place, Sunday, the next to last day of June. They talked about how wonderful was McCain's service to his country, and Franklin said "We had an opportunity to pray for the senator and his family, and for God's will to be done in this coming election.""

Prior to this meeting with the Grahams, McCain had previously claimed that it would not be a political meeting, and that the Graham's "transcend politics." Therefore, "there certainly is no political aspect to the meeting that I will have."

Does he expect people to believe that? Has he gotten away with so many lies for so long he just assumes people will believe whatever he says?

And Franklin, who said he would not be endorsing anyone for president, praised McCain's "personal faith and his moral clarity." One cannot help but wonder if Franklin knows the least little thing about John McCain.

Franklin also urged "men and women of faith everywhere" to get out and vote and become active in the political arena. You know, so God's will is done.


Here's a summary of what actually happened: John McCain held a private meeting with Billy Graham and his son, Franklin, the latter having risen into a position of moneyed leadership among Christian fundamentalists the world over.

This was nothing so crass as a "political" meeting. McCain wasn't thinking at all about all those "evangelicals" and others who revere Billy Graham as something of a Protestant saint. McCain would never do that! He would never meet with Billy Graham just to try to wring some votes out of the fundamentalist heartland! Nosirree! He wasn't there for Graham's blessing, he just wanted to talk with the elderly evangelist and his powerful son.

Furthermore, the Grahams didn't endorse him. Again, nothing so crass as saying right out loud that they want McCain to be president rather than that young, black, upstart Barack Obama. All Franklin did was say he was impressed by McCain's "personal faith" (do you hear that, all ye fundys?) and "moral clarity," which surely implies he knows not of McCain's political career! No, Franklin thinks McCain's quite a guy. You might even assume, if you're reading between the lines, that Franklin would like to see McCain ascend to the Oval Office!

So, said Franklin to his fundy followers, "get out and vote" (and you know who to vote for, too! Snicker, snicker!)

Sometimes it's hard to know which group on the whole is more deceitful: religionists or politicians!

Chris Matthews disses Democrats (falsely) on abortion

The following is from Media Matters and is another example of how our so-called "journalists" mess with the truth because of their need to create controversy to keep viewers watching, or because they are biased in favor of the Republican Party.

June 12 - Hardball. Matthews says "I don't hear Democrats talk ... about the need to reduce the number of abortions. They talk about the rights issue, the constitutional question of Roe v. Wade, but you don't hear them talking a lot about the need for education, for much fewer, maybe enormously fewer, unwanted pregnancies, which is the reason people get abortions."


Is Matthews ignorant as to what Democratic leaders have said, or again is he merely trying to create a controversy where there is none?

Matthews' statement came shortly after Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) noted that Senator Obama "...wants to downplay and discourage the number of abortions in this country, to have more family planning, to avoid unwanted pregnancies."

Perhaps here is the key to Matthews' false accusation. Perhaps he is in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant fundamentalists who are actively trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal again. Both groups, disparate though they be, are also on record as opposing family planning and the use of contraceptives.

It's a "Catch-22." Make abortions illegal, but also deny people access to the means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies.


At Messiah College on April 13, Obama said that "[W]e can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He also said, "I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there."

While Obama "is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies," the extreme Right, which includes the Bush administration, has in the past seven and one-half years, done everything in its power to deny "access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies."

The extreme Right powered by the Bushites, has also continued to plague us with "abstinence only" sex education, which has been proven time and again to be ineffective, and at the same time denied funding to those who wish to provide accurate "health" information and preventive services.


Hillary Clinton, on March 6, said that "...making it harder for women to get information, counseling and family planning services is a counterproductive policy." In other words, without this information along with family planning services , "there will be more unwanted pregnancies. And without access to adequate medical care, many women will die undergoing unsafe abortions."

In another speech in January of 2005, Senator Clinton referenced the importance of "comprehensive education and accurate information" in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

On CNN's The Situation Room of June 4, Clinton she asserted that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare."


Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), in his book, Positively American, affirmed the goal of reducing abortions by 50%. On the website related to the book, a statement appears emphasizing appropriate sex education in public schools, making contraceptives more available, increasing spending for federal family planning programs, and creating a national campaign to help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.


On Hardball, October 5, 2005, Howard Dean told Matthews "I think we ought to have the smallest number of abortions as possible. You know, the number of abortions have gone up since George Bush has been president. ...we ought to reduce abortions to the smallest number possible. But I don't think you do that by taking away the right of women to make up their own mind about the way their lives are going to be shaped."


December 29, 2004, on Hardball. The governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell told Andrea Mitchell that Democrats "all want to see the number of abortions reduced. And there are plenty of ways to do that, with sex education, sex education on the preventative side, with making prevention tools available to young people, by speeding up the process of adoption..."


Obviously, Chris Matthews has an ulterior motive for his slam against the Democrats. Clearly, his comment is false and misleading. It appears to be a statement intended to denigrate Democrats by lying about their views on abortions.

Furthermore, he doesn't discuss the real issue, which is this: Those opposed to legal abortion in this country, simply don't give a damn for women caught in an abortion decision dilemma, because they predicate their opposition on religious dogma. It's the age-old Christian/Catholic theory that it's better a person die than go to Hell for their sin. Here the fundamentalists with their anti-sex fulminations have joined forces with what used to be their arch-enemy, the Roman Catholic Church.

Thus, we have the incredibly stupid and harmful policies put in place by the Bush administration which deny proper sex education and access to contraceptives both of which would, in fact, help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions, in favor of a failed policy that promotes abstinence and increases unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

Under the Bush administration, the number of abortions has increased!

And maybe Matthews could be sent back to Podunk, USA, where his false statements and misleading comments will be less of a threat to honest and open discussion of the issues.

Unhinged wacko smears Obama in local paper

About 30 years ago, one could rightly say that the main-stream media in this country was more likely to be biased toward the "liberal" side of things. That is no longer true. Today the great majority of media outlets--including radio and television stations, as well as newspapers--are controlled by those who are on the right-wing side of things.

The New York Times, for example, once a great newspaper, has of late devolved into just another rag hawking the ultra-conservative line. Our local paper is owned by The New York Times, which is probably why it gave front-and-center space to an article (with photos) titled "Obama's un-American mentors."

The article, which is merely a rehash of the anti-Obama emails cluttering up the Internet, was written by "a retired manager for IBM." Hmm. Maybe that explains it. IBM, which stands for International Business Machines, was the American company that supported the Hitler regime and the Nazi killing machine from the 1930's through the end of the war. It was only because of IBM that Hitler was able to efficiently and quickly hunt down and murder 6 million Jews and millions of other so-called "defectives."

Our letter writer may not have been involved in all of that, but his company was, and that might explain his hate filled diatribe, his "guilt by association" and his many lies. Here are some examples:

Obama's un-American "mentors" are, as you might guess, Jeremiah Wright and the Roman Catholic priest, Michael Pfleger. Our letter writer says they are BUMs - "Barack's Un-American Mentors." Isn't that cute?

Also mentioned as a mentor is a "virulent anti-American, ex-patriot, Frank Marshall Davis." That's not nice. Is that the way all IBM managers speak of their fellow Americans? You've probably never heard of Frank Marshall Davis, but according to our IBM manager, "Frank was most influential in helping Obama form his political views during his teenage to early manhood years."

Now, imagine little Obama sitting at the feet of this virulent, anti-American who's telling Obama all the bad things about the good ol' US of A, and Obama's looking up at him saying "Yes, Frank, I believe that, Frank. Wow, Frank, thanks for clearing that up, Frank. America is really bad, huh, Frank?" Amazing, isn't it?

One of the things that Frank taught Barack was "the tenet that America was, is and always will be a racist country, never to be trusted to do any good in the world (maybe that's where Michelle Obama got her world views from also)." Of course. That explains it! That rascally Michelle!

Oh, Barack was also influenced mightily by none other than the radical "Marxist," Saul Alinsky. Jeez, should've known. That explains why Obama has such a feel for people! Hot damn!

What does our our IBM (pro-Nazi business) retired manager think all of this means? Well, Obama "is from the radical left fringe of the left wing of the left of center Democratic Party."
My god, I would hope so!

And, oh my god, Obama, says our IBM-er, is gonna unite all the America-haters! Of course, we knew that. Haven't you seen those thousands of people cramming Obama's rallies and didn't you just know that they were all "America-haters"?

Finally, retired manager says that those people who "still love this country will look, listen, investigate, vote and throw these BUMS out in November."

Out from where?

What an idiot!

Catholic bishop wants to enforce religious dogma on the public

Thomas Wenski is the bishop of the Orlando, Florida diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not surprising that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. That is his right. Unfortunately, like most Roman Catholic prelates, he believes it is also his right to force his religious dogma upon all Americans.

Wenski claims that the decision of the California Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages in that state was an "example of raw judicial activism." He says he is not bigoted or homophobic and that to oppose same-sex marriages in California and elsewhere is not to be "bigoted," or "homophobic." He doesn't explain what else it could be, however, other than false piety.

Redefining the legal definition of marriage, which he says is the result of the California ruling, means that "proponents of 'gay marriage' are in effect imposing their views and lifestyle on the larger populace..."

Exactly how do they do that? According to the bishop "the state's coercive power will punish those who refuse to embrace gay marriages."

Actually, the good bishop is full of horse-hockey! First of all, gays are not "imposing their views and lifestyle on the larger populace." Not one single person in California or Florida is required to engage in gay marriage or even like gay marriage! Nor is the "coercive power" of the state to be implemented against "those who refuse to embrace gay marriages."

It is true, that civil servants will be required to do their jobs, even if their duties conflict with their religious beliefs. But that's always been true. Many courthouse clerks across the country have been in fundamental religious disagreement with persons they have married. They will, in fact, be required to officiate same-sex marriages whether they agree with them or not. No biggie. Public service is bound by the Constitution, not religious doctrine!

Then the bishop goes off the deep-end. He claims "Public schools will be required to teach their [same-sex marriages] acceptability to children whether parents concur or not." More horse-hockey. Public schools should teach that discrimination is always wrong, no matter the reason, but no state is going to require its schools to teach anything about the acceptability or unacceptability of any marriage. Perhaps the bishop has confused public with parochial schools?

Even if that were true, all the bishops need to do is build more Roman Catholic schools for their little Catholics and the problem is solved. The bishop and his ilk can teach how homosexuals are sinful and bad people to their heart's content.

Furthermore, says the bishop, "Marriage has been primarily about the raising of children, who seem to be hardwired to be best raised by a father and a mother who are married to each other." Maybe. But these days, marriage is often not about the raising of children. Furthermore, with over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, children are often left to be raised by one of the divorcing parents. The bishop also conveniently fails to mention our increasing propensity for serial marriages where children are raised by one or more step-parents during their growing-up years.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a same-sex couple cannot raise a child as well as a male/female couple. In fact, the evidence supports the idea that a same-sex couple can do just as well or better than the traditional father/mother combination. It's all about love, you see.

It is possible the bishop, being a bishop, is still confused about sexuality and refuses to accept the findings of science that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality, to use his own phrase, is "hardwired," most scientists agree, at birth.

But then he comes to the crux of it. The Roman Catholic Church is the repository of "truth," and as such can determine which activities should be lawful in a society and which should not. "Truth is not constructed, but received and thus must reflect the reality of things." So the bishop quotes Genesis 1:27 as if that says it all, when it really doesn't say anything to people who are not biblical literalists and who live in the 21st century.

Objective truth (the truth "received" by the RC Church) is not invented, like the "truth" of the proponents of same-sex marriage, says the bishop. The latter truth would lead to tyranny, says the bishop.

Which means further that same-sex marriage will devalue all marriages "with terrible consequences to society."

Please! If there is any organization down through history that has ruled its people "tyrannically," it is the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, in every instance where the Roman Catholic Church gained political control, tyranny was the order of the day!

Today, this religious body, one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of the earth, with its claims of "received truth," is fighting same-sex marriage by raising the straw man called "devaluation" of all marriages.

Jesus, of course, said nothing about homosexuality. Essentially, the biblical justification for opposing homosexuality comes from the "Old" Testament. Again, how can a church justify using one verse from the Bible while ignoring a multitude of other verses? More importantly, why should a secular state base its laws upon ancient religious texts from one particular group--the ancient Israelites? Which raises another fascinating question: Why would a Roman Catholic bishop insist on following ancient Hebraic laws when he represents a Christian church for which St. Paul said, the "law" is no more?


For most people, same-sex marriage is a civil matter. No church has anything to say about it. Marriage is between two people who love each other. The church doesn't "marry" anybody, it merely "blesses" the covenant two people have made. And I don't want to hear about the "sacrament" stuff; that's merely more RC dogma. The "sacrament" is the covenant. Nor does the state "marry" anybody; it merely gives legal sanction to a covenant between two people.

It's about time the Roman Church (as well as all the other fundamentalist churches) stop trying to enforce their moribund and morbid religious dogmas on all the people of the United States!

Jingoism at the local level

Jingoism is dictionarily defined as: "Extreme chauvinism or patriotism, esp. the advocacy of an aggressive foreign policy." I would add that jingoists are usually people filled with fear, hate and ignorance.

Such as the man who complains that whenever there is a disaster in the world, our government runs off to help people, and "fix it for them."

"We have disasters here," he says, "and nobody comes her to help us.

"I never saw any Chinese, Germans, Arabs, Indians, etc. coming over to fix New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. We police the world, pay for the world, feed the world and the world hates us."


Oh, jeez. Ignorance "R" us! In fact, we don't "police" the world, although we are currently trying to extend our empire by preemptive wars to obtain oil. We don't "pay for the world," and couldn't if we wanted to because our currency has dropped so far in value. We don't come close to feeding the world. In fact, although we do try to help those less fortunate than us on occasion (which I thought was a good thing), numerous countries provide more aid around the world than we do!

He's also wrong about the world hating us. With the exception of radical Muslims and other terrorist groups, people around the world are actually quite fond of America and Americans. What they don't like is our government. Many do, in fact, "hate" President Bush and his administration. In fact, recent polls indicate that most of the major dictators and other "bad" guys around the world are held in greater esteem that our own president, for which he has no one to blame but himself!


The other thing this clown is really wrong about is his claim that nobody helps us. In fact, when disaster strikes, we are often offered assistance by other countries. In the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, a number of countries offered money and goods. The Bush administration, in its great wisdom, turned them down!


Jingoism rears its ugly head all over the heartland. It's not a nice sight. But it's tempting as it allows the jingoist to ignore reality, hate them damn "foreigners," and blame everyone else for our problems.


God bless America!

Exorcism be damned!

In Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that a church could not be held responsible for injuries a 17-year old girl received during an exorcism.

The Texas Supremes reversed a lower court's ruling and jury award to Laura Schubert claiming that the case unconstitutionally "entangled the court in religious matters."

What? Our system of justice does not apply to churches that injure or cripple or cheat or murder their members?

Schubert said that back in 2002 she was "exorcised" by members of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God in Coffeyville. Said members held her to the floor for hours as they went through the process of chasing the devil from her body. This left her with cuts and bruises and carpet burns and so disturbed her mentally that she mutilated herself and attempted suicide.

It should be noted that the Chief Justice of the Texas Supremes dissented from the 6 to 3 decision by saying that "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."

Which led a local to comment, "No shit, sherlock!"


My advice to Laura Schubert and others who might be tempted to try this hellacious kind of Christianity, is get the hell out, now!

Big Oil's Lube Job

(Photo from bbs news)

From certain government documents we learn that we are being sold a bill of goods (as if we didn't already know that) by the oil men and the oil companies that run our government.

According to an article at BSAlert, the rapidly rising price of gasoline has nothing to do with a shortage of oil. The U.S. Department of the Interior reports that the oil companies have access to as much oil as we need, but they refuse to drill for it. "They're letting prices go up in an effort to put pressure on consumers to put pressure on lawmakers to give them even more access to drilling areas." As of this moment, "only 17% of the oil leases available are actually being drilled."

I'm not surprised when political office seekers like John McCain and the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, flip-flop on drilling for oil off the American coast, for they inhabit the bottom of the food chain, but I am constantly amazed as to why so many Americans allow themselves to be fooled by the corporate behemoths who operate with only one goal - to take more money from the pockets of Americans!

Typical is this comment: "As we wait around for countries like Norway, China and Vietnam to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, thanks to Cuba, we will sit back and miss out on a share of the bounty." Such a statement is vivid testimony to the effectiveness of the propaganda spewed by Cheney and his friends - Chevron, Mobil, Exxon, BP, etc. It's a statement reflecting not only ignorance of the facts, but a willingness to be deluded by the very ones picking his pocket.


What we have had in place for some 26 years is a moratorium on off-shore oil and gas drilling in certain areas. "Other areas are not only open to drilling but leases and drilling permits have already been issued.

"And they are not being drilled."


As noted, "only 17% of the leased areas is in production." There are some 33 millions acres of offshore areas that are currently available for drilling. "The fact is that nearly 25 BILLION barrels of oil off the coast of the United States" is in position for drilling.

The truth is this: "...more than 44 million acres of onshore public lands are leased for oil and gas development and yet most of it is not being drilled. All told (onshore and offshore), 68 million acres are leased and sitting idle. Over 10,000 permits are currently 'stockpiled' by industry. But still they want more."

Could it be that the oil and gas industries are not satisfied with their record profits? Could it be that they want to increase these profits on the backs of the American consumer?

Current estimates indicate that "if all those ... inactive leases were drilled, the USA would produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas EVERY DAY, accounting for a doubling of US oil productino and a 75% increase in US natural gas production.

"The Minerals Management Service tells us that about 80% of fossil fuels available in offshore are currently available for development."

Is it possible that these facts describe "yet another cynical attempt by the GOP and the oil and gas robber barons to increase and assure huge industry profits at the expense of the American people. ... [Is it possible that] They want to hold them as assets to limit the amount of oil and gas on the market so that prices rise still further - and they make more money"?


You bet. Below is yet another example of the power of the oil and gas robber barons:

Last Tuesday, the U.S. Senate "blocked debate of a bill to offer about $17.7 billion in tax incentives for consumers to build renewable energy sources like windmills and solar arrays, and buy plug-in cars that run on electricity rather than gasoline."

The global corporations are not our friends! Their operations are not tempered by a concern for the public good. Their god is mammon and they serve it with a unconscionable ferocity. They feed us their lying propaganda dressed up as truth. Unfortunately, too many Americans believe these lies and thus parrot notions against their own best interests by promoting a lifting of the moratorium and to allow these self-serving corporate monsters to ensure their future profits even though their actions are in radical opposition to the interests of the people and the national interest.

It's a mammoth oil company con job greased by greed.

In God We Trust?

She's not one to speak her mind. She keeps her own counsel. But sometimes life becomes so frustrating that she has to say something. This is one of those times.

What has her upset is "how all the public buildings and places have to remove anything that has God's name written on them, such as 'In God We Trust.'"

This is a terrible testimony to the power of those who don't believe in God, she says. The wreckage resulting from such atheistic connivings is a plain as day! "...look and see," she says, "what is happening around the world and the United States. I can only speak for the U.S., but we were united by God's goodness and His word."

I guess she thinks that at a time in the past we were united under the Christian God and now we are not.

Unfortunately, this concerned citizen does not specify exactly what we should expect to see as a result of our disunity from God, so a reader can fill in the blanks. Fundamentalist Christians would no doubt point to the usual doings of the devil -- abortion, homosexuality, prayer in the public schools, etc.

Others, though, with a broader view of things might reference the preemptive and illegal war in Iraq instigated for the purpose of obtaining Iraq's oil. Initially a botched attempt, it now appears the oil barons will win, their no-bid contracts soon to be signed by Iraqi officials. How many people have had to die because we did not trust god to provide the oil to the oil companies in the first place?

In Afghanistan, a resurgent and powerful Taliban is rearing it's evil head. Maybe we should have left our army at home and knelt in prayer, trusting God to bring American-style democracy to that country.

Our economy is in the toilet. Jobs are disappearing by the thousands, and hundreds of thousands of homes are in foreclosure. Taxes are insufficient to provide for basic needs such as fire and police protection. Is this the result of not trusting the Christian God?

The Constitution of the United States has been abrogated by the very leaders sworn to uphold its provisions. Did we not trust in God enough? Torture is now an approved method of coercion so far as the Bush administration is concerned. Does God allow such things to happen because we fail to trust him?


While it may seem that the "evangelicals" in our country are neither as numerous nor as powerful as we thought, there are still too many people like this woman who blame the American people for not trusting God, symbolized by the lack of slogans such as "In God We Trust" posted in appropriate places. I cannot recall, however, when that particular slogan was normally found on "public buildings and places."

The poor soul has no clue as to what this country is about. The problem is not a lack of trust in God. God simply doesn't enter into the equation. While it is true that many of our political and business leaders have mouthed such pieties in profusion down through our history (and continue to do so), this country has never depended upon God, but upon the Constitution. And there is nothing of any god - Christian or otherwise - in that document.

When the Constitution was not enough, of course, we called upon the Army.

But the Constitution is not enough when individuals dedicated to enriching themselves as opposed to serving the people are put in charge. As we have seen in excruciating detail, the Constitution can be circumvented with aplomb by ingenious and clever and powerful people of evil intent. Perhaps we've "trusted" in God too much or in people such as President Bush who have claimed to "trust" God but behaved like the devil!


"'In God We Trust' was added to the nation's currency by a bill sponsored by a Dixiecrat congressman named Charles F. Bennett ... [a member of the secretive, fundamentalist group known as The Family]. Bennett, a self-styled ethics crusader, saw himself as a small-government man; God and the dollar would redeem the nation, if only Congress would unshackle them. 'Congress can't remake the soul of America,' he'd say, a notion he evidently though justified his opposition to civil rights."

Congressman Bennett offered the opening prayer at the second Presidential Prayer Breakfast (now known as the National Prayer Breakfast) "at which Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren--then still a conservative--declared that separation of church and state was fine, so long as 'men of religious faith' were in charge of a country he described as 'a Christian land, governed by Christian principles.'" [from The Family by Jeff Sharlet]

Strange, isn't it, that even when we wrote "In God We Trust" on our coinage our problems were not solved! Adding "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance didn't change anything either.


But people haven't given up trying. In Toledo, Ohio, a group of true believers gathered at an Exxon-Mobil station to pray down the high price of gas. Before that happened, though, the pastor of Toledo's First Seventh-day Adventist church, Mike Fortune, drove members around the station in the church's van. A little magical lap.

Fortune then led the group in prayer: "We know you love us like crazy, Lord. We just ask in your name if you will work and intervene. We also want you to bless this gas station and its owners."

Rocky Twyman, founder of what's called "Pray at the Pump," joined hands with the folks gathered and sang "He's got the gas prices, in his hands..." to the tune of "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands." Twyman sermonized that "God is telling us to stop depending on ourselves so much and trust in him."

So far as I know, gas prices did not decline. But a couple of trucks that drove in to fill up, saw the group of pray-ers and turned around and drove away. As you might guess, the station owner was a little pissed. "I just lost a diesel sale, so I'm not happy about that," he said.


Ah yes, trust in God, that's all we need. Say a little prayer. Try some magic. Still unanswered, though, is the question as to why such religious wailing is necessary if indeed the Lord "loves us like crazy."

This whole silly business gives me gas.

Evangelicals losing ground (or are they?)

This is from Mainstream Baptist, via Talk2Action.

Christine Wicker has published a new book, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation. In this book, she suggests that the American public has been conned into thinking that evangelical Christians are a large and significant percentage of our population.

Using statistics and reports from evangelical groups and organizations, Ms. Wicker shows that evangelicals comprise about seven percent of the U.S. population and that percentage is going down, not up.

"For the past thirty years, 7 percent of the population has swayed elections and positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. By puffing its numbers and its authority, it has gotten legislation passed that opposes the popular will and has divided the country into acrimonious camps. It has monopolized the media so effectively that other religious voices have been all but silenced. It has been feared and loathed, revered and loved. It has been impossible to ignore. But underneath its image of power and pomp, the evangelical nation is falling apart. Every day the percentage of evangelicals in America decreases, a loss that began more than one hundred years ago."

The second idea Ms. Wicker discusses in her book is the "desire that she and millions of other Americans have for a faith that does not require them to surrender their intellect." For millions of members of mainline denominations that has never been the case. Evidently, the Southern Baptist milieu is somewhat less susceptible to reason.


With regard to her statistical information that the percentage of evangelicals is dropping in this country - let us hope she is right. Enough is enough!

But there is a huge problem. The evangelical power in the United States is held in secret, by a group of leaders who confess Jesus as their model, but this Jesus is not the Jesus who ended up on a cross. This Jesus is Paul's Christ who rules from the seventh heaven. This Jesus is a Jesus who gives power to those who seek him - the power to rule nations and peoples - all for the glory of god, of course.

This evangelical group is known as The Family. The story of The Family is told in all its chilling detail in Jeff Sharlet's new book called The Family. These evangelicals are not the side-show freaks that inhabit the world of the Pat Robertsons, the Falwells, the Dobsons, the Hagees, or the Parsleys. These evangelicals walk the halls of Congress and sit next to or on the thrones of the rulers of the world. These evangelicals seldom if ever make the headlines. They don't wear their faith on their sleeves, but work behind the scenes, in prayer cells, in legislative chambers, on presidential staffs. These evangelicals believe their mission is to rule the world for God.

They are very dangerous.

McCain's Fortune (magazine)

My copy of Fortune magazine arrived a couple of days ago with a full-cover spread of a meditative John McCain next to the inscription "How I'll Fix The Economy." Below that is this note: "The candidates talk about what they'll do to get America rolling again."

There's not much question about Fortune's preference for president.

About McCain, Fortune writes "As a maverick Senator, he took pride in just saying no to everyone's wish list. But as a presidential contender, he's become a tax cutter and defender of mortgages." Well, the last part may be true, but the "maverick" bit is right from the McCain playbook.

About Obama, Fortune says: "He slammed big companies and free trade in the primaries, But Barack Obama insists he just wants to show corporate America some tough love." Huh?


Bloggers around the country have responded to Fortune's paean to McCain. Liberals claim that McCain's notion that Islamic extremism is the great threat to our security is an indication he knows nothing about the economy and wants to turn the election into a referendum on national security.

Conservatives tend to agree with McCain's assessment of the terrorist threat and play down his lack of economic knowledge.


We rant and rail much about the power of the corporate entities, and perhaps their perfidy has become extreme in recent years, but this country has always been ruled by the corporate elite and the corporate elite has always beat up the common man - except when the union movement was vital and strong. Today, corporations are feeling the power as the unions are weak shadows of their former selves and the peon is once again at the mercy of those at the top who really don't give a damn about anything except money and power.

So it isn't surprising that Fortune magazine strongly favors McCain. Under McCain, those with fortunes, leaders of the corporate world will move ahead unimpeded as they seek even greater fortunes and more power. And McCain, assuming he's a nice boy, will end up amply rewarded if by nothing more than the plaudits of the power-brokers he aimed to please.


You can read numerous opinions and comments on the Fortune article here.

"Endorsements R Us!" - John McCain

(Photo of US bombers laying 'em down in Vietnam)

First it was John Hagee, the mental cripple from San Antonio. Next came Rod Parsley, the deranged con man from Ohio. Now comes the best of the rest.

We're talking, of course, about people who have endorsed John McCain for president of the United States. It isn't relevant that McCain has "dis-endorsed" both Hagee and Parsley and that they, in turn, "dis-endorsed" McCain. The fact remains that both of these religious wackos thought McCain the best candidate to serve their particular and egregious dreams for our country and McCain was so greedy for the presidency, he actually sought out their endorsements!

The "dis-endorsements" would never have happened if the media and not finally been pressured into revealing the hokey creepiness of Hagee and Parsley.


McCain, as you no doubt have read, has a new "endorsement." This from none other than the man who was McCain's "jailer" when he was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Tran Trong Duyet, 75, said he would give McCain his vote if he were an American voter.

According to Tran, he and McCain were "buddies." Tran claims further that McCain was not beaten and/or tortured -- that McCain made all of that up. Tran says he and McCain would get together when Tran was off duty and McCain would correct Tran's English and they had a great old time. McCain had a wonderful sense of humor, says Tran.

McCain is also "tough," says Tran. " ... In all of our debates, he never admitted that the war was a mistake."


What a guy! And what endorsements. Two off-the-wall TV preacher-crooks and now his Vietnamese communist warden! Can't get much better than that!

Oh, right, we forgot. McCain also has the endorsement of 99 percent of all the lobbyists in Washington, D.C. (Just kidding. It's probably true, though.)

McCain in a plain wrapper

Peeling back the wrapper:

Think Progress charts how McCain's tax plan is another giveaway to the richest among us. The information derives from an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. This analysis shows just how much each of the presidential candidates stand to gain from their respective tax proposals.

Under the McCain Tax Plan, John and Cindy would save $373,429. Barack and Michelle would save $49,329.

Under the Obama Tax Plan, John and Cindy would save $5,641. Barack and Michelle would save $6,124.



Charlie Black, the eminent lobbyist serving as McCain's top go-to-guy, has been quoted as saying that another terrorist attack would "be a big advantage" for the McCain campaign. When questioned about Black's comment, McCain said "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true."

Hmm. Keith Olbermann noted on his MSNBC show that back in 2004, McCain personally offered the suggestion that a little terrorist activity might help the Republicans. "...a Connecticut paper quoted McCain as saying during a local campaign stop that thanks to the release of an alleged al Qaeda tape, 'Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost.'"

A major question, raised by Chad at BuzzFlash (along with many others) is why McCain has not called for Black's resignation? Chad suggests the fact McCain has not fired Black impeaches McCain's character.

From BuzzFlash: "The assassination of Benzair Bhutto in December was an 'unfortunate event,' says Black. 'But his [McCain's] knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.' As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black."

According to Chad, "It says a lot about the McCain campaign that he hasn't called upon Black to resign, and it says quite a bit about Black in that he didn't voluntarily offer to resign."


Alex Koppelman at Salon.com further unwraps Mr. McCain by informing us that McCain has missed the most votes of any senator during the 110th Congress. Koppelman dramatizes the issue by noting that "At this point, he has missed more votes than even South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson, who couldn't work for almost a year after suffering a brain hemorrhage in late 2006."

Koppelman refers to an article at Think Progress showing that McCain was the "Senate's most absent member in April of this year..."

From the Washington Post we learn that McCain has missed 367 votes during the 110th Congress, 61.4 of the total, which Johnson has missed 311 votes. Obama is in 3rd place, missing 259 votes.


Then, of course, there's issue of McCain's "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, fanatical television evangelist from Ohio. McCain also called Parsley his "moral guide." This particular relationship did not get the same media attention that McCain's relationship with John Hagee did, but it is just as telling and an important reminder as to the kind of person John McCain is...underneath all that "hero" stuff.

No one with any sense of reality believes that McCain, "an Episcopalian-turned Baptist-of-convenience" (as Sarah Posner so neatly puts it), would go to Parsley for anything but his endorsement in order to garner the votes of the poor folks who are sucked into Parsley's game of emptying their pocketbooks. In other words, McCain's sucking up to Parsley is as much of a sham as his shameless kneeling before John Hagee!

Parsley is an uneducated con man/huckster who has thousands of fools following him. He tells them if they send him money God will richly bless them and fill their cups to overflowing with financial abundance.

Parsley is a goofball who speaks in tongues, a faith-healer who claims he can break homosexuals from their "bondage," who knows when Christ is coming back, despises humanists and secularists and believes God has called him to help America with its heavenly mission - the destruction of Islam.

Parsley endorsed McCain after McCain came begging. McCain, belatedly (after hanging on to it for three months), rejected Parsley's endorsement. Parsley then withdrew his endorsement of McCain.

Isn't this fun. McCain is endorsed by two of the grossest religious freaks in the country--Hagee and Parsley--and tells the world how wonderful they are and how happy he is to have their endorsement, and then, only when the media uncovered the rot under their shiny surfaces did McCain back away.

McCain's problem is that he'll call anyone great, a "spiritual guide," a "moral leader," etc., if he thinks that will bring him more votes. He rejects these creatures of the night only when it becomes a stop-loss situation.


Let's wrap up McCain in November and send him back to Arizona and the beer biz.

Global Warming Gotcha!

Photos:
Bottom is the Pasterize Glacier in Austria in 1875.
Top is the same glacier in 2004.

It isn't news that the Bush administration has not only played down the threat of global warming, but has actually fought even the most timid attempts to do something about it.

This very week, The New York Times reported that an e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency sent to the White House suggesting greenhouse gases be taken seriously was deliberately ignored. Adding injury to insult, the White House then ordered the EPA to write another report more in line with the Bush administration's hands-off approach.

Another recent report, this by the CNA Corporation, a non-profit group aligned with the U.S. military indicated that "climate change is a very serious threat to national security." It is likely this report will also be ignored by Bush and friends.


Unfortunately, while more and more Americans have become attuned to the dangers the world faces from global warming, there are still too many who get their news from right-wing radio commentators who spew their trash-talk out onto the airwaves baffling the benumbed and the dumb.

One young man told me the other day that global warming is a myth. There is no danger, he says. Coastal areas of the United States are not about to be washed away by the rising seas. When I pointed out that the evidence is massive and that the great majority of scientists are in concurrence with not only the threat of global warming, but with the rapidity of change which is occurring, he told me that the scientists can't be trusted because their funding and thus their livelihood is based upon their global warming "discoveries." If they told the truth--that global warming is a myth--they would thus lose their funding and their livelihood.

This is not, I think, an unpopular view among many in the mythical "heartland" who deny reality because they are unable to think the unthinkable -- that maybe "everything" is not going to be all right.


James Hansen, one of NASA's top scientists, began warning about global warming 20 years ago. Today Hansen's warnings have taken on a new urgency. Our only hope, he says, is "drastic action."

Hansen appeared before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming this week to state unequivocally that we have gone way past "the dangerous level" with regard to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Because the Earth's atmosphere can handle the current load of man-made carbon dioxide for only about 20 more years, we must take action now. Hansen said that "We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," and will be visited with mass extinction, the collapse of the ecosystem, and rapidly rising sea levels.

One of the major creators of carbon-dioxide emissions are coal-fired power plants that fail to install capture mechanisms. The world can no longer afford to utilize such power plants.

But there is no easy way to shut them down without a major effort on the part of the world's leading nations. Such an effort is not in the offing: a recent report indicated that many countries around the world are at this moment actively engaged in constructing coal-fired power plants, including the United States and Great Britain.


I have just finished reading Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth - The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It." This is a sober, descriptive and challenging work, which effectively destroys the arguments of the naysayers. No one can read this book without beginning to understand the scope of the problem because Mr. Gore has included scores of photographs and diagrams and charts to buttress his argument about the danger of global warming, which is not so much "argument" as it is a plea for action.

The NASA scientist, Hansen, noted that the "tipping point" so far as the destructiveness of global warming will be seen in the Arctic, and "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes. ... it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Within the next five to ten years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer, said Hansen.


Or maybe it will occur this year! CNN.com, in a report by Alan Duke of June 27, notes that "The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. ...

"It's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen in autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole."

One of the things that has astounded these scientists is the rapidity of change! Five years ago, they would not even have considered the possibility of North Pole ice melting in the summer.

Furthermore, these scientists insist this is not merely part of a regular historic cycle. "It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well ... We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming."


Now scientists are further warning that because the sea ice (and the glaciers) are melting so much faster than anticipated, we can expect rising seas to begin damaging coastal areas around the globe in just a few years.

We may be too late, but Dr. Hansen and other climatologists believe we have a small window of opportunity to turn things around...but time is of the essence.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is more interested in fighting wars of empire for oil to enrich its members and its friends than it is in preserving the Earth for our children and grandchildren. And the attitude prevalent among the Bushites is still too common among the masses.

It doesn't help that morons like Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, keep getting elected to Congress. Inhofe, a far right extremist, believes global warming to be a myth. In a recent statement he said that "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."

Unfortunately, for the rest of us, global warming isn't a religion in which you can choose to believe or not. Global warming is a real as a 9,000 foot cliff and we are walking straight to the edge with little sign that we even know the cliff is there. To walk off the edge of the cliff ... well, you know what happens then.

(FYI - An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore is available at Barnes & Noble at a reduced price.)