Jack Conway and the Race that Wasn't

In September, Jack Conway was asked point blank if he was going to run as the Democratic challenger to Republican Anne Northup in the 3rd Congressional District of Kentucky, and he said, "I'm thinking about it."

At that time, he said he would let people know by the first week of October. When the first week of October came and went, it became "next week."

As the weeks came and went, that became "in a few days."

As the months, weeks, and days passed by, Jack was courted by the DCCC, even taking a trip to Washington, D.C. Everyone talked about Conway running against Northup. After all, he had experience, having run against her a few years back, and came pretty darn close to beating her.

This time, the stage was set for victory. The Republicans are on the run. Anne Northup is as vulnerable as she will ever be. Jack Conway was assured both financial and volunteer support from the DCCC to the Kentucky Democratic Party to the grassroots. Everybody Jack talked to knew he could win, and so did Jack. So what happened?

He told some people that he was waiting for his family to give him the go ahead. Asked if his fiancee (he's getting married in May) was supportive, he was quick to assure us she was indeed supportive of his running.

So who wasn't? Family usually means either a husband or wife, or one or both parents. In this case, has to be the latter. Now why would a father or mother not wish their son to win a Congressional race against one of the most despicable politicians in Kentucky?

I guess if they'd rather have him run for the top spot, or second top spot, in Kentucky, instead. Consider, then, the implications. If Conway's parents, of whom at least one is a very powerful individual, withdrew their support for their son's Congressional bid, what's a middle-aged guy to do?

Well, here's my take on the whole situation.

Jack Conway strung this community along for months, apparently while trying to talk his parents into supporting him, which includes financially (remember, powerful people get contributions). Assurances by the DCCC, the Democratic Party, friends, and grassroots individuals apparently were not enough if Conway didn't have the support of his family.

I grew up in an era where Civics was taught in Jr High School. Civics has long since passed out of the public school curriculum, but I sincerely advocate its comeback for precisely this reason: Civics teaches the young student the symbiotic relationship between citizen and nation-state, which is a relationship of rights and responsibilities. The nation-state has a responsibility to do its duty to provide for the common good by ensuring the well-being of the individual, but the citizen also has a duty to serve the nation-state when needed. This always takes the form of voting, which is the responsibility of the individual, but more than that, when the nation-state needs an individual to serve, and there is no one else to do the job, it is incumbent upon the citizen to answer the call.

Jack Conway did not do that. Instead, he turned his back on the 3rd Congressional District, on the State of Kentucky, and on his country. Does that sound harsh? Good.

Anne Northup and every Republican like her are a blight on this country. Each individual Congressperson makes up the body of the whole. We need voices that fight for Democratic values of justice, fairness, and equality for all, and most importantly, for the moral value of doing the right thing, even if it's hard to do.

Jack Conway has turned his back on these basic Democratic values, saying "not yet."

Well, Jack, here's my reply: "Take your sorry ass back home and stick a fork in it, because you're done." Forget about running for Governor or even Lt. Governor in 2007, because the people of Kentucky will not forget, especially if they are still smarting from a loss in the 2006 election. Forget about running for Atty. General - Stumbo is doing a fantastic job.

Moreover, if Conway doesn't have sufficient fire in his belly to run in a race that he has to know he can win, then why do we want him for any elected position? If his family counts on him to win anything in 2007, I think they're going to be disappointed.

But the worst faux pas that Conway committed is stringing Democrats along for so long that it will now be virtually impossible to find someone who can challenge Northup. A campaign should already be beginning. And the worst humiliation of all? Northup and her Republican cohorts must be laughing their collective asses off.

This is one Kentuckian who will never forget Jack Conway's betrayal of our trust. He took away our hope, our dream, and quite possibly, our chances of finding another candidate.

Jack, you just don't screw your public like that and expect to show your face in public again, let alone deserve our support.

Hit the road, Jack, and don't come back no more, no more, no more. You deserve every harsh word and criticism you get.

Conway abandons voters to Northup's craven fealty to Bush, DeLay

Democrats, Stand Up for America!

Democrats, stand up for America! Rep. Murtha is leading the way, giving you permission. What are you waiting for? A Republican invitation? C'mon.

So many opportunities to hammer Republicans are being missed. Democrats need their own version of "the hammer".

For instance, Rep. Nussle (R-Iowa) stood on the house floor the other night and said that government has no business making private decisions for its citizens. Really? Then I guess that Rep. Nussle believes that government has no business making personal reproductive decisions for American women, either. We can all breathe a collective sigh of relief.

But where are the comments from Democrats? Are Democrats so afraid to even broach the subject of abortion that they'll pass up a golden opportunity like this, to see Republicans' pants all in a tussle, scrambling for their spin doctors?

Grow some balls, boys and girls. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch, or, in other words, you can't pee like a puppy.

And why haven't we heard any response from Democrats regarding Hastert's speech? Nancy Pelosi stood on the House floor and read two letters from Catholic Charities and the American Council of Churches, stating that "budgets are moral documents", beseeching the House not to pass stringent budget cuts aimed at the nation's poor, including cuts to Food Stamps, Student Aid, Housing, etc.

In response, Republican Hastert got up and said that the House couldn't be held hostage by "religious morality", that they had a job to do and the people that elected them expected them to do it.

WAIT a minute. Here we have a Republican administration that's ALL about "religious morality" when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, we have a Republican president that wears his religion on his sleeve, and the Speaker of the House blatantly speaks out AGAINST "religious morality"?

Which one is it? Republicans can't pick and choose when to be sufficiently moral. They either are, or they aren't. (Put your hands down, we all know the answer to that!)

But WHERE are our Democrats? Why haven't they pointed this out?

Folks, this is the stuff that confuses the hell out of the electorate, and they need to be confused. They need to learn the truth about the Republicans they've elected. They need to learn about the hyprocricy and the lies. Who else is going to point this out to them?

Granted, not many people are up at 3 am watching the House of Representatives duke it out. And most people are too busy watching CSI and Survivor during prime time. But what's the excuse of all the Democrats in the House that sat there and listened to these diatribes?

And BTW, I have to say that it's becoming much more fun to watch the House of Representatives these days. I think they must all be watching British Parliamentary proceedings quite a bit lately, because the House is much more animated than it used to be, complete with hooting, hollering, and of course, Nussle strutting around like the peacock that he is. (Where on earth did Iowans dig him up?)

So, when it comes to Rep. Murta, someone for whom I have profound and deep respect for having the courage and integrity to stand up and say to this administration and the American people, "It's time to go," we should all be supportive. I called his office in Washington, D.C. shortly after I saw his televised speech, to thank him. You could hear the glow in his staff's voice as she thanked ME for calling.

We should all be calling Rep. Murtha. This isn't some liberal, folks. This is a guy that fought in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars (and yes, Vietnam was a war, not a "conflict"), has two purple hearts, and moreover, has the ear of Pentagon generals. If Murtha got up and said what he did, you'd better believe that this is what the Pentagon is thinking, too.

So what the HELL is wrong with our House Democrats for not following Murtha's lead?

Can they really be that clueless?

And again, talk about missed opportunities. Here you have House Republicans deriding Murtha and Democrats in general for advocating withdrawal, or at least, a timetable, saying that it demoralizes the troops.

Well, gee, I don't know, but if I were a soldier over in Iraq, and my President and Vice-President advocated for torturing prisoners, I'd be crapping my pants and hoping that I wouldn't be captured by the insurgents. Talk about demoralizing!

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS? I really wanna know.

Dobson's Dilemma

Dr. Dobson has a dilemma. Apparently this Focus on the Family evangelical Christian has been getting phone calls from U.S. Congressmen and other administration officials, including Karl Rove. Here's a link to his radio show on October 5, 2005:

http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Archives.asp

During his radio broadcast, he seeks to reassure his listeners that Bush has made an "outstanding" decision in nominating Miers. He bases this on the fact that Bush "knows" Miers' heart (a scary thought), and that Dobson knows the person who "led" Miers to Christ, among other things.

Listening to this radio broadcast, Dobson probably reveals more about Miers than what's known by most Americans.

For example, Miers apparently said that she did not support the repeal of the Texas sodomy law. (Bad news for gays.)

Dobson also makes clear Bush's goals to reform the Supreme Court, and to "support life."

Particularly troubling to me is that our Congressmen are actually calling this conservative Christian asking him "WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?" They're not just asking his opinion, they're asking him what to do. Why should any U.S. Congressperson ask James Dobson how they should vote on this matter? This should raise a red flag to any American.

Dobson also is quite confidant that Miers will overturn Roe v Wade, that she will reform the Supreme Court according to Bush, and will not betray him.

Dobson said "this is about babies." Alarms should be going off in your head, now. Dobson is quite confidant that Miers will overturn Roe. He has to be, or he wouldn't sit there and say that "the blood of babies will be on my head if I'm wrong."

He also talks about "things he shouldn't know" about Miers, apparently told to him by Karl Rove. (Rove seems to be making a career of talking out of school - first he outs a CIA agent, now he's telling Dobson State secrets. Hasn't Rove ever heard "loose lips sink ships"?)

Dobson is a conceited, self-important man - even when he prays, he tells God what God thinks! Pride goeth before a fall.

Also troubling is that Dobson doesn't think he should have to tell anyone what Rove has told him, citing confidentiality. Bad news for Dobson. He may have a doctorate in psychology, but confidentiality does not extend to what someone other than a patient tells him, even in confidence. And even confidentiality within the confines of a client-therapist relationship has its parameters.

I hope Dobson is called to testify in Miers' nomination hearings. I'd like to see him refuse to testify before Congress on what Rove told him, citing confidentiality, because it won't hold up as a point of law.

The ball is in the Democrats' court again. Let's hope they don't pass on this one, like they did on Roberts. I can already hear the Songs of Lamentation.

Bush's War on the Poor

Bush is declaring War on the Poor. No doubt about it. This began in his first administration, when the first thing he did was grant humongous tax cuts for the wealthy. Some might ask, "how does this affect the poor?" After all, tax cuts were given to the poor as well as to the wealthy, weren't they? Well, no, not really. There's a big difference between a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut and one that averages out to be less than $100 for the average low-income tax payer.

But even that's not the biggest problem with those tax cuts. Despite the fact that the federal government derives its income from the people in the form of taxes, Bush thought it was just fine to reduce the federal coffers by billions of dollars per year. That would have been bad enough, but Bush's popularity was waning, even after just 8 mos. in office. What's a guy who likes to spend the majority of his time on vacation looking for bugs on his ranch in Texas to do? After all, he wasn't really needed all that much in Washington; Bush is just the pretty boy front man for the men who really call the shots - Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and quite possibly Paul Wolfowitz, and Big Daddy himself, George H.W. Bush. Never underestimate the old man's power.

Of course, it just doesn't look good for the President to be absent from his job so often, and the people know when they've made a mistake. How to fix it? According to Bush Sr.'s and Wolfowitz's pet project - A Project for the New American Century, as www.newamericancentury.org - the best way to get the people to rally around the President is to have a war and win decisively. Enter the plan to allow 9/11 to go forward. I happen to be one of those firm believers that Bush and Co. allowed 9/11 to happen. I do not believe in coincidences. I never have. At first, I didn't want to believe that our President, Vice-President, and others in the present administration could have conspired to even allow such an attack upon American soil, but eventually I had to face the facts, which were too many. To believe otherwise, I would have had to accept too many coincidences, and as I said, I don't believe in coincidence.

I'll even go so far as to entertain the possibility that Bush and Co. not only allowed 9/11, but actually invited it, orchestrated it.

After all, Osama bin Laden is a member of the same Saudi family with which the Bush family has close personal and business ties. Bush "doesn't think about him [Osama] much", curious for the "war president" to say about a man who killed 3,000 American citizens in one fell swoop.

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but they're the ones who were invaded. Afghanistan doesn't have any oil. Whoever controls the world's oil supplies, controls the world. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with lowering oil prices in the U.S.

The main goals of the Bush administration are all about business and rewarding the rich. Business is all that matters. Whether it's Haliburton in Iraq or Haliburton in Louisianna, it's all about profit.

Bush won't go after illegal immigrants, which has some conservatives scratching their heads. They can't understand why he doesn't do something about border control. What they can't grasp is that Bush seeks to create a pseudo-slave society. Illegal immigration fits perfectly into this scenario. CHEAP LABOR. Bush doesn't care about Americans without jobs. He only cares that big business gets cheap labor.

And with all those wealthy tax cuts, which we all know has done and will do nothing to stimulate our economy, Bush deprives the federal coffers of monies needed to fund things like education, food stamps, housing, medicaid, etc. All those social programs that the wealthy do not believe in. Not if you want to keep the poor subservient. Why should tax dollars go to help the elderly, the disabled, and the poor?

Anyone who questions Bush's intent to dismantle Social Security should think again.

People should only get what they work for. Anything goes in business, nothing is illegal, and laissez-faire is the attitude of the federal government, and of any State and local governments run by Republicans. It's all about rewarding those that are just as ruthless and heartless as they are.

Americans need to learn once and for all that there is NO SUCH THING as compassionate conservativism. Make no mistake, Bush's War is on the Poor.

Don't let him get away with it. Beginning in 2006, vote Democrat. Get the Republicans out of office. Demand election reform and paper trails. Demand publicly financed campaigns, thereby eliminating much fraud and deceit.

Demand Democracy. Otherwise, we are left with a Totalitarian form of Nazism.

Controversial Iraq Porn/Dead Bodies Site

I've read about this site, but never imagined that I would ever see it. After all, these sites usually get shut down as soon as too many people know about them, right? Not in this case.

I was going through one of my email inboxes a few hours ago, and came across an email that I hadn't opened. I belong to a good many internet discussion groups, and this one I had joined, but had not yet read any of the emails from the group. In fact, this email was sent on Sunday, and today is Tuesday, so I usually just delete most of the groups' emails older than a couple of days, whether I've read it or not. After all, I can always go to the website and read the messages there, if I really want.

Well, for some reason, I clicked on this email, and saw only three messages. I wanted to get a feel for the group, which is what I usually do, to see if I might be interested in participating in a discussion, or even if I want to read the emails on a regular or semi-regular basis. The first email was from a professor at CUNY, lamenting the state of academic affairs. I read it with semi-interest, noting it's veracity, and then proceeded to the other two emails. I never made it to the third email, because the second email riveted me.

As I said, I had heard of this "gory picture for porn" scandal, and never thought I'd ever hear much more about it, let alone see it with my own eyes. But see it I did. And I'm going to post the link here for you to see, too. The writer of the email ventured that the public needs to see this, and gory as it is, I have to agree. "Support our troops" has taken on a whole new meaning for me. If this is what our troops are up to, we're in deep fucking shit, excuse my English, because we have some very sick puppies serving over there in Iraq.

Here's the link to the article in East Bay Express: http://http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news_print.html

The article is bad enough, but to really see what our soldiers are up to, you have to go to: http://nowthatsfuckedup.com/ and click on "enter this site". But beware, you might never be the same. It will (or should) shock, disgust, and sicken you. Upon entering the site, you can browse around. There's alot of porn, in fact, that's purportedly what the site is for. That's bad enough. I hate porn, and for the life of me, I can't understand any soldier putting his wife/girlfriend on a site like this, nor can I imagine her agreeing to it. I guess it just goes to show you the extent of our troops' moral decadence. I have to wonder if that is an accurate reflection of our society. I also have to wonder what the religious right would think about their beloved troops if they saw this site.

Anyway, the porn isn't what I went there for, and if it isn't what you're there for (hopefully), then you'll have to browse around and look for folders that say something like "Iraq and Afghanistan pictures", and there are a few of them scattered around. You can also click on the "Search" button at the top of the site and enter "Iraq" and you will be redirected to a page with folders and pictures of Iraqis that are not only dead, but that obviously died tortuous, violent deaths at the hands of our American soldiers.

And you gotta read the captions our brave soldiers have put on these pictures of theirs.

I'm so proud. NOT.

If this is what it means to be an American soldier today, then as I said, we're in deep shit. It's no wonder we're hated by the Iraqis. I have no doubt that our karma is going to take a deep kick in the ass sometime in the near future. It is inevitable.

But don't take my word for it. Go see for yourselves. Be forewarned, though, it is not for the squeamish or the faint-hearted. This is some hardcore shit. And I'm not talking about the porn. It will change the way you think about our military, and our soldiers. It may even change the way you think about our government and a military that supports this kind of thing. It's worse, much worse, than we ever imagined. This is BushWorld.

This is what happens when we have a "war President".

Just do me one favor. Spread the word. Copy the urls. Make sure everyone you know, and even those you don't, see these pictures. The world has got to know.

What About Harriet Miers?

What about Harriet Miers? I've never heard of her before today, but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing that she has had no judicial experience. That's what seems to be the focus of the media.

But should this be the focus of the media? I believe what the media should be focusing on is the fact that this is a woman who has close, personal ties to Bush.

What do we know about Harriet Miers? We know that she is about 61 years old, we know that she is unmarried, we know that she was born and raised in Texas, we know that she received both her undergraduate and graduate degree in law from a Southern Methodist University, we know that she was Bush's personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas, we know that Bush brought her to Washington, we know that she was appointed White House council in 2004.

And there is much here that disturbs me.

She is roughly 61 years old and has never been married. Neither of these things, in and of themselves, are necessarily bad. I'm not worried about someone of that age being appointed to the Supreme Court. She will have roughly only 20-25 years, give or take, on the court. That's not as serious as say, Roberts' tenure of a possible 40 or more years to influence Supreme Court decisions in a conservative way.

She's never been married. Also not terribly important, on the face of it. I don't necessarily think one has to be married to understand how marriage might impact one's personal views and life. She can still understand reproductive issues, domestic issues, etc. And in this day and age, it is not so unusual to find that a woman might have invested more heavily in her career than in her personal relationships. Maybe she just never found anyone she wanted to marry. If there was one thing I might be worried about here, it would be that because she has so devoted herself to her career, that's where her loyalties lie. More about that later.

She was born and raised in Texas. Ok. It's not Texas' fault that Bush chose it to adopt as his home State. But it does seem that alot of people from Texas seem to run in the same circles, and boy, they sure do seem loyal to those that have helped them along the way. Keep that in mind.

She attended a religious university. I'm a Methodist. I know people who have attended Methodist Universities. It may not be Oral Roberts, but it's not that much different. A religious university is just that. While it's true that Methodism, as it is called, is not the same as fundamental evangelicalism, it still has its own brand of fundamentalism. The plus is that Methodism is well known for its stance on social justice. The minus is that Southern Methodism is much more conservative than United Methodism.

She was Bush's personal lawyer during his tenure as Governor of Texas. This concerns me. Bush has identified her as a personal friend. He has a long-term working relationship with her. Therefore, she most likely knows him well. She most likely knows his beliefs, thoughts, and desires. She may quite likely know his agenda.

In fact, she was so liked by Bush that he brought her to Washington, D.C. with him and eventually appointed her White House council. Obviously, she is a bright and competent attorney. That's a plus.

But again, just as in Roberts' case, what's not a plus, and what's most disturbing to me, with both of these individuals, is their close proximity to Bush himself.

This is glaringly obvious in the case of Harriet Miers.

How objective would she be? Would she follow Bush's wishes? Is her ultimate loyalty to Bush? Or to the American people? She has said she is a strict Constitutionalist. Bush has said she will not legislate from the bench.

All of these are alarm bells.

I think there is a very real possibility that this woman will reward her benefactor, Bush. He seems to have done much for her career. Now we're into murky waters. She's not married. Is Bush a substitute husband for her? I'm not suggesting any impropriety; I'm merely suggesting a possible emotional attachment on her part to a man whom she has known for decades, and is quite possibly one of the only men with whom she has had a close, personal relationship.

She has a conservative background, witnessed by her choice of universities. Yes, she was the first woman to serve as President of the Dallas and Kentucky Bar Associations, but we all know that sometimes it's who you know that further one's career. That she comes from a State that seems to produce more than its share of politicians who practice cronyism and patronage is not comforting. And even if that weren't true, at most, these could only testify as to her acumen as an attorney, and leadership ability.

It is my opinion that the media should be focusing on two things: Her ability to express an opinion independent of Bush's wishes; and just how conservative this woman might be.

One can only hope that when questionned, she will be more forthcoming than her predecessor, John Roberts.

USATODAY.com - Bush encounters setback as Senate blocks Bolton vote

USATODAY.com - Bush encounters setback as Senate blocks Bolton vote

Is Bolton a bully or, as the Republicans insist, a reformer? Well, I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm leaning toward bully.

Make no mistake, the radical, right-wing regime has an agenda. Bush is a meglomaniac - and he's mild compared to Karl Rove, the silent enemy behind the Bush mask.

These radical rogues have all but taken over our country. They control the media (which is NOT the liberal media of old, but is now 90%+ owned by conservatives) and are now attempting to control PBS; they have the majority in both the House and the Senate, so they basically are working to have total control of Congress; they are appointing so many repressive, right-wing judges that it makes our heads spin; they control the FBI and the CIA; they are succeeding in their attempt to control women by allowing pharmacists to decide whether or not they will fill birth control prescriptions (some will not) and their goal is Roe v Wade; and now they are attempting to control the U.N.

ANYONE OR ANYTHING that doesn't agree with their radical, right-wing ideology is a target. We're not just looking at totalitarianism in our own country, we're looking at total world control.

And the scary thing about that, last time I looked, is that this is exactly how the antiChrist will take control of the world.

Now, you can scoff and guffaw over that one, I don't really care. Making fun of something that a majority of people in this country believe exists doesn't bother me. I've often said that God's reality is the only reality that matters, and if God says that in the end times Satan will control the earth, then I believe it.

And it makes sense, given the current state of affairs, that this could actually be happening. Certain things have been in place for a long time, things that most people, myself included, were either clueless about, or didn't think much about. But when these things taken together start to click in unison, then events start happening pretty fast.

It's like building an interstate highway system. You can start building parts of it all over the country, and only that part of the country will see anything being built. It's a slow process, and it takes time. But once all the work is done and all the cities and states are connected, things move quickly. All of a sudden, the interstate is up and running, traffic's moving quickly, at faster speeds than before, and everything's changed.

And that's kind of how the Republican Party has masterminded this "hostile takeover" of our democracy.

For those who don't believe in the Bible, or in conspiracy theories, this won't make alot of sense. And all I can say to that is, we'll see. All I'm saying is that IF you believe in God, IF you believe in the devil, IF you believe that Satan's goal is to overthrow God, IF you believe what the Bible says about the end times, and IF you then consider, if you were going for world domination, how you would go about doing it, then all of this does make sense.

IF there is a Satan, and IF he is looking to take over the world to thwart God's plan for us, then the only reasonable way to do it is to move toward one world government/domination by one country over all the others. Otherwise it's too hard. It's much easier to take over one entity than it is several hundred.

So IF you can get the most powerful nation in the world under your command, as it can be speculated that Satan has done with the Bush administration, which incidentally, stands for just about everything Satan advocates (selfishness, greed, unethical behavior, hunger for power, deceit, warmongering, etc.) and nothing God stands for (service to others, compassion and empathy, ministering to the poor, the elderly, the widow, and the orphan, fairness, non-judgment of others, peace, and loving your neighbor), than it's just another step up the ladder to control the most powerful country in the world (us, and they are close to doing that now), and then just another step to control the U.N., which means that Satan would be that much closer to controlling the entire world.

Look at how easily the American people were duped by Bush. God says in the end times that people would have "scales over their eyes" and be blinded to the truth. That same thing can be applied to leaders of countries. Plus, besides that, some people and world leaders, I'm sure, have been and will be intimidated and threatened. There are already rampant rumors of what happens to Republicans who don't toe the party line. Imagine what can happen to countries that are dependent upon foreign aid.....

Well, this is just a scenario, but who's to say if it's true, or just a fabricated fantasy? I guess only God knows.

Social Security Scam and Cutthroat Conservatism

I'm one of those 50-somethings who has alot invested in Social Security. I want to make sure that I have a "guaranteed" income to fall back on when I retire. So, the Social Security scam proposed by the radical, right-wing, runaway-rogue faction of the Republican Party is particularly scary and upsetting for me.

Take the words "social" and "security". The word social implies that it's for everybody. Security means that it is secure, or guaranteed. Social Security was never meant to be anything other than a disability and retirement insurance program - but the unholy trinity and their legion of unholy demons in Washington, D.C., are trying to dismantle it. Why? So that the wealthy will benefit.

Who won't benefit? The workers who need it the most. The elderly, the widow, the orphan, etc. The very people that we are commanded to look after (Biblically and morally speaking).

The thing about Social Security is that the wealthy pay more into it than those who are earning minimum wage or slightly more. But wealthy people are less likely to draw Social Security, and since many wealthy people do invest, their dividends and other unearned income usually keep any Social Security paychecks they might receive, low. On the other hand, someone who's worked hard all their life earning minimum wage or somewhat better, has paid less into Social Security, but will end up drawing more out of it in the long run.

And that, my friends, is it in a nutshell. Huge tax cuts for the upper crust wasn't enough for this administration; now they want to rob the middle and lower classes of their insurance payments, to boot.

It's called greed. GREED. Coupled with greed is a total lack of compassion or concern for others. So what if you've worked your ass off for 50 years. It's YOUR fault that you weren't lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family; it's YOUR fault that you weren't talented enough to get a good paying job or start your own business, or that you weren't successful at your business; it's YOUR fault if you or your family weren't responsible and self-disciplined enough to make sure everyone was taken care of in their old age or when illness struck. The bottom line: it's YOUR FAULT, and they don't care if you roll over and die, as long as they can take more money to the bank.

These Republicans are rogues. They do not represent the mainstream, decent, hard-working Republican who may differ on political issues but have many of the same values as Democrats or Independents, or even Greens. NO, these are radical, extreme right-wing, fundamentalists. They are the equivalent to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins in that their ideology is not mainstream - they are radicals. And they are willing to go to great lengths to perpetuate their agenda - for example, Iraq.

Curiously enough, people aren't listening to what these people are actually saying. If they were, they'd be scratching their heads and wondering what planet these guys and gals come from, and how the hell did they get in power in the first place. For some perplexing reason, most Republicans and even some Democrats, et. al., don't bother to compare the words spoken by these people and their actions.

For instance, these radical right-wing Republicans are constantly spouting the Bible. But do they actually evince an accurate understanding of God's Word? No, they don't.
If they did, they would understand that the majority of the Bible has to do with how we treat people. Jesus was constantly admonishing those that judged others, and he was also continously telling the rich that if they were to follow him, they must first give away their possessions to the poor. Naturally, that went over like a lead balloon, which is why Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I guess George hasn't read this part - oh, wait a minute, I forgot, George doesn't read. Well, no wonder they don't get this part of the Bible. See, most fundamentalist evangelical preachers, the ones you usually see on TV or in the huge revivals that take place in sports arenas, are always preaching that God wants us to have the abundant life, and that means God wants us to be rich. Hmm, I wonder why. Could it be that they're always asking for the believers to send them money? And they're getting rich, so obviously they have to tell their followers that it's not only ok to be rich, but that God WANTS them to be rich. It's just a cover for their own bamboozling of God's people. And think how many people they've led astray. And how many more people have gone on to bamboozle others in the same vein.

How many people has G.W. bamboozled? Legion.

I'm sure God doesn't care if we're rich as long as we take care of the needy, the widow, and the orphan, etc., but Jesus knew it was hard for the rich to actually follow him. Why? Because "MY ways are not YOUR WAYS", saith the Lord. Jesus's ministry was about SERVICE to others. Not just those deemed worthy, but service to ALL. Remember what he said to HIs disciples as He washed their feet? If you want to lead, you must first serve.

I don't think George W. is used to being a servant. Or Cheney, or Rove, or Rumsfeld, or the whole lot of them. So, no, I don't think they can be trusted to talk about God's Word or anything else even remotely Christian, because they don't know the first thing about it.

Preachers need to start standing up to this Republican moral ruse. They need to start making an example of them to their congregations, instead of keeping quiet because they're afraid of repercussions. Although, that fear may be very well founded.

It is becoming well known that if you don't toe the radical Republican hard-core line, there will be political and personal repercussions by those "leaders" in the Party that take care of these things, i.e., Rove and his henchmen.

So, I challenge all good citizens that think that the Republican Party is the "moral" party to write and tell me just why you think that, and we'll discuss it next time.

Patriot Gal

Monkey King Monologue, Part Two

When last we spoke, I was sitting in the nosebleed section of Kentucky Theater for the Arts waiting for King George II, aka "The Monkey King", to commence his dialogue with us Louisvillians on the merits of creating private accounts for Social Security.

On stage, if you remember, were bleachers full of people, and one lonely guy in a wheelchair. I guess he was the chimp's token gimp; after all, W. doesn't have much of a chance to show off his compassionate conservatism, so sharing the stage with a disabled person is probably about as good as it gets. And all the guy had to do was sit there during W's dog and pony show and represent all the disabled people who weren't invited.

(Some weeks later I actually met the mother of this disabled veteran, as it turned out, who said that the Republican Party of Kentucky actually called them to ask if her son would sit on the stage. Turns out the poor guy wasn't even really a Bush supporter....just some poor sap who figured he'd get his 15 minutes of fame by sitting on the same stage as the President of the United States....).

Eventually G.W. swaggered onto the stage in that way that so many redneck guys have (no offense to any anti-Bush rednecks out there) that tells you he's thinking "every woman wants me and every man wants to be me". Well, that's "his" fantasy, anyway - it doesn't have to be true.

Of course, all the mindless automatons went beserk. You'd have thought it was God himself walking onto the stage.

To Bush's credit, he actually pronounced Anne Northup's name correctly (on a previous visit he had mispronounced it as 'Northrup') and then proceeded to let us all know that not only was she a supporter of his privatization plan for Social Security, but actually brought some ideas to the table. (Three months later, the citizens of Louisville and the 3rd Congressional District are still trying to get her to sit down and explain to us just what those ideas are....Inquiring minds want to know).

To the left and right of G.W. were two older men and two young gals who looked starstruck. I guess W's charm must have that effect on women, since they seem to like him so much even as he's basically telling them they don't have enough sense to take control of their own bodies and aren't capable of running their own affairs.

Well, I kept waiting for the "dialogue" to begin. G. W. began by talking about freedom and peace interchangeably - I guess he must take every opportunity he can to stump for the Iraq war - and it was apparent he'd learned that framing stuff well. Either that, or he was wearing an earpiece and someone was telling him what to say. Could have gone either way, but I was too far away to tell.

At any rate, after only a few minutes I felt that I was truly "in the belly of the beast". There's something intrinsically evil about that man.

Well, ole' G.W. kept going on about how we should be able to "own" our accounts and be able to leave our money to our descendents. Right. Like that's going to happen with 99.9% of the people. All he had to do was dangle dollar signs in front of these people, like a rabbit in front of a greyhound, and you could just see them drool. He could have just as easily have said "we're gonna steal from the poor and give to the rich" and they would have still clapped.

Now, there were a few dissenters in the crowd, people I knew, that had vowed to stand up and try to have an actual dialogue with G.W. Unfortunately, the accoustics in this theater are not conducive to this type of speaking, and although three people stood up and voiced their opinions, concerns, and questions - you couldn't hear what they said.

First of all, as I said, the accoustics were terrible. Second, those Republicans know exactly what to do at the first sign of democratic discourse - they clap and cheer and drown any dissenting opinion or questions out. And that's exactly what happened. But, I applaud their efforts.

As far as the "dialogue" with G.W., the only ones who got a chance to talk to him were the grandpas and their granddaughters on stage. And that was obviously scripted and rehearsed. There were no questions from anyone. And even though Bush had no plan to lay out for anyone, no one seemed to care. All they heard was "more money". G.W. told people he wanted to privatize accounts, period.

I could have stayed home for that.

One thing that did impress me though, was the giving away of bumper stickers and yard signs after the "show". I know the Republican party has more money than God and the Democratic party has virtually no money whatsoever in comparison, but Democrats need to start digging a little deeper and have comparable materials to give away, rather than sell. Selling this stuff just makes them look cheap.

I came away from this feeling cheated. It was "much ado about nothing", as far as I was concerned. It was like watching an old fashioned "tonic" salesman plying his wares. Ole' "Slippery George" was telling those tall tales almost as good as Mark Twain. He was the huckster, the trickster, and the hustler all rolled up into one.

And all I could keep thinking was, "why can't these people SEE THIS!" My only answer is that God has allowed scales to cover their eyes, and eventually they will realize that they have been selfish and greedy, and because of their greed, have been deceived. After all, it is written that "Satan is the father of all lies" - and G. W. , along with his cronies, just have to be related.....

Patriot Musings

Patriot Musings

Monkey King Monologue, Part One

Well, I survived. I'm still here, and I wasn't brainwashed or turned into a Republican clone. But I don't think I'll be in any great hurry to attend another Republican function again anytime soon, Monkey King or no.

I began my day on Thursday by standing on a street corner in downtown Louisville holding a sign protesting Bush's Social Security agenda. From 7:30 until around 9 am my friends and I braved the cold wind coming up from the Ohio River and were warmed only by the honks of like-minded Louisvillians on their way to work. A few pedestrians even stopped to say "thank you" as they passed by, including one gentleman whose parents were Canadian, and who told us that for him to return now to Canada would take about 6 months. Apparently it's not as easy to go to Canada as it used to be, even if you're Canadian!

Around 9:15 am we headed up to the Kentucky Center for the Arts, where the Monkey King would be speaking. There was already a long line, and we soon learned that there were different colored tickets - gold, red, and blue. A young Repub came out every few minutes to gather the golds and whisk them away. But the line moved fairly quickly, so it wasn't too bad. Some of my friends going in were planning to stand up and say something, but I was going to abstain. First of all, I just didn't feel like getting arrested for civil disobedience, especially in a day and age where people are arrested and never heard from again....Second, intuition told me that there weren't enough dissenters on the inside to make a difference. Third, I was curious enough to want to see firsthand, up close and personal, just how the Monkey King was going to spin his web of deceit. (There's always a kind of fascination with the perverse, isnt' there? It's kind of the same thing with serial killers. They're horrible people, they do dastardly things, but for some reason they hold a morbid fascination for you - like Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy.)

Standing in line with so many Republicans was a real trip. The first thing that annoyed me was the people behind us making fun of Bill and Hillary Clinton. We were biting our tongues, but I finally had to make a "loud-enough-to-hear" comment about people living spiritual lives and how people who were mean-spirited and gossiped about others or made fun of people weren't acting like Christians. Of course, it went right over their heads - they were CLUELESS. Republicans just don't think any of this stuff applies to THEM.

Finally we got to the doors and went inside. Of course, I would be the one who "beeped" going through the metal detector. I had put my keys in the basket, and my purse on the belt moving through the scanner, but I still beeped. So I was "hand scanned" and my ankles "felt up". That's right. They felt my ankles. They never asked me to empty the pockets of my jacket, which are quite large, but they felt the need to feel my ankles up. Perhaps the guy had an ankle "partialism", who knows. As long as they didn't make me take off my underwire bra or check my underwear, I could handle it.

There were two doors marked, of course, "gold tickets" and "red tickets"; the "blue tickets" sign was over by the stairway leading to the nosebleed section, but that was ok. Debbie and I said goodbye to Carol and proceeded to go upstairs where we met another Progressive on her way to the same section we were. I got to sit in one of the box seats (I won't say why....) and eventually they let Debbie come over to sit by me, but not Amy, even though she asked at least three times. There were only three seats there, so it was me, Debbie, and an usher - an old man that had to be at least 75 if he was a day. To my right was a Secret Service agent. We couldn't have shouted anything if we had wanted to....

Once seated, I immediately took out my pen and paper, as I had determined that I was going to take notes from beginning to end. I was particularly interested in how Bush was going to frame his message, and I was hoping that we would get to ask some questions. But it wasn't to be that kind of "forum". In fact, it wasn't a forum at all.

I think some of the "gold ticket" holders were who was seated on stage, but there were bleachers directly behind, and to the left and right of a semi-circle of 5 chairs with a sheet holder off-center of the middle chair (like the kind that holds music for orchestra musicians, only bigger.) I guessed that this was for Bush's notes.

While we waited for the Monkey King to arrive we were entertained by some Christian singers, Christian music, and Terry Miners. He's a local Republican ass-kisser who came out and made fun of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. I must say that I am truly amazed at how much Republicans make fun of other people. The word "jerk" comes to mind, and visions of the school-yard bully. So here are all these people dressed to the nines, many with kids in tow (yes, I was also surprised at how many parents had pulled their kids out of school to attend this event - but I was also impressed at how well most of the kids behaved. That is, no running around, no whining, none of the usual stuff you usually see kids doing, I have to admit), but many of them were acting like ill-mannered kids themselves. No wonder that their own kids will probably grow up just like them. Hateful, hateful, hateful. I just had to shake my head at some of the stuff I heard.

Finally the Brownies came out and we said the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a singer from St. Stevens. There's history here, too. Republican Congresswoman Anne Northup gave huge amounts of money to this African-American church right before her re-election.... That's her modus operendi - buy the Black vote. She's been so successful at it that she even managed to buy a Black Metrocouncilwoman this last time around. The public and televised support of this Black Metrocouncilwoman got her a $75,000 job - created JUST FOR HER. Hmmm. But that's another story.

Stay tuned for Part Two of the Monkey King Monologue....where I'll talk about how these "town hall" meetings REALLY go....

Patriot Gal

Remember: Dissent is Patriotic!

The Monkey King Is Coming To Town

The Monkey King comes to town tomorrow, and I actually have tickets. Why? That's a good question. It all began with an email I received this past Monday where the sender was lamenting the fact that no tickets were to be found for Bush's one-act play "Town Hall Meeting on Social Security".

There's nothing I like more than a good challenge, and so I immediately set out to find some tickets. At least I was going to give it a good try.

I first called the Republican Headquarters. "No tickets here", I was told. All tickets were being dispensed through Rep. Anne Northup's (R-KY) office. So I called Northup's office. There I was told that there were no more tickets, period, and in fact, this particular volunteer said she was receiving phone calls at home all weekend.

Receiving phone calls at home? Hmm. Myself not being privvy to this person's home phone number, I "innocently" said that I presumed that tickets would be made available to ALL constituents and not just Republicans. After a slight hesitation, the woman agreed that that was true, of course. So I reminded her that I didn't know her home phone number, and where could I get tickets, or at least, could I get on a waiting list. I think she just pretended to take my name and phone number - you know how you can tell when people "pretend" they're writing down the information, but you know they can't possibly write that fast, especially when you have a name that EVERYONE asks you to spell....but they don't?

So, I called the Republican HQ back after that, just to say that it sounded like only certain people were going to get tickets, and apparently many of these were people who happened to know the home phone numbers of Republican workers. This woman literally tripped over herself trying to assure me that there were only a certain number of tickets available for the entire State, etc., etc., etc.

Fine. But I was still left with no tickets. So I then did what every red-blooded American with internet access does - I googled the event. And lo and behold, I came up with a newspaper article that said that not only would Rep. Northup's office have tickets, but Republican Headquarters and Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) office would as well. Hmm.

I had specifically asked both Northup's office and Republican HQ if McConnell's office would have tickets, and was told "no" both times. I was specifically told that Northup and a woman in her office personally "spearheaded" this event. That made sense, in a way, because Bush actually came here to stump for Northup this past fall during her election campaign - as well as his own - even if he did mispronounce her name as Northrup instead of Northup. Could we expect anything else?

Anyway, it took about a split second to figure that McConnell, being a pretty powerful Senator and married to the Secretary of Labor, to boot, just might have tickets. So I called. Lo and behold, a very nice lady told me that yes, they would have some tickets, but she didn't know how many or when they would get them, but what was my name and phone number and how many did I want?

How many did I want? I wasn't prepared for that, and for some reason "four" just popped into my head and out of my mouth. "Four", she asked? Thinking that was too many, I said, "If I can get them, but I'll take two, or even one if that's all I can get." "Just give me a number", she said, and so I said, "Four".

Mind you, I didn't have four people in mind, but I thought I could find at least three other people that would be interested in hearing what Bush had to say about the Social Security (non-) Crisis. Truthfully, the thought of just being in the same room with someone who I believe could quite possibly be the anti-Christ turns my stomach, but I am very curious by nature, and I really want to see how he spins this. I may even write a freelance article, who knows. I want to see if progressives can actually get their questions asked, and how Bush and his SS handle people who might disagree with him. Above all, I want to see how the media reports the whole shabang.

Of all the Presidents in my lifetime, who would have ever thought that it would be the one I despise the most (so far) that would be I would get to "see". Life is full of ironies, and this is a biggie.

Imagine my surprise when I received a phone call from Sen. McConnell's office this morning to tell me that my tickets were there - all four of them! I immediately called a friend of mine, who jumped at the chance to go, and figured I'd give the other two away. (I later received a phone call from my friend saying she had gone home from work sick with the flu, and won't be going - so I ended up with three extra tickets instead of two).

As it turns out, tickets to this event have been harder to give away than I ever would have thought. NO ONE, and I mean, NO ONE, wanted tickets! As it turns out, there will, of course, be a rally to protest Bush's anti-Social Security stand, and most people would rather attend that than actually be on the inside....

As if they'll get within 3 blocks. They actually think they might be able to march right up to the venue and protest, but if this is anything like Bush's other appearances, they'll be lucky if they're even in the same time zone. I say this because I've attended many rallies since 2000, and this is the MO.

But, unless I'm on the FBI's short list, I'll be on the inside, where I plan to do NO civil disobedience, unlike some people I know who also have tickets, who shall remain nameless.....

I don't feel like being arrested by the Secret Service and going to jail. Call me wimpy, I don't care. I will be a witness, but tomorrow I am not going to engage in civil disobedience on the inside. But I will KNOW. I will be able to observe first-hand what goes on in these meetings, how biased or not they are, etc. And I will also know how the media in my town report - and just how biased or not, truthful or not, they are. And to me, that's worth having to sit there listening to him tell one lie after another with that smirky, chimpy, shit-eating grin on his arrogant face.

I want to get in early to get a good seat, but I don't want to shake his hand, so I hope he doesn't offer it. He might have cooties. Or worse.

I just had an awful thought. What if they somehow practice some kind of mind control and we all come out Republicans! Agghh!

To protect myself, I've come up with a list: Don't shake his hand; don't drink the water; don't eat any food if offered; don't look anyone directly in the eyes; and don't breathe the air. Okay, that last one might be a little hard to do, but I'll just try not to breathe too deeply....

I'll let you know what happens.

God's Politics and the Progressive Movement

I'm in the process of reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis. As a Christian, I sometimes get a little pissed off by my leftist compadres when they "shush" me for talking about Christian values in a political venue. I really am tired of hearing "we must be inclusive and respectful of those who don't hold our same religious beliefs". They have no problem with not being inclusive when it comes to the right-wing extemists. So why do they have a problem with inclusiveness within their own ranks?

Well, I've got three words for them these days: "Get OVER it!" I'm no longer going to "shush" when I want to talk about how my faith affects my politics. I've been inclusive long enough, and now it's the politically correct, the atheists, the agnostics, and the "other" religious believers that are just going to have to be inclusive and let me and other Christians have their say. We might actually have a clue.

So here's me, having my say.

I believe that God is a God of light and in Him is no darkness at all (IJohn 1:5). And I don't know, but maybe God evolves, too. Or at least changes his mind. It seems that the God of the Old Testament seemed very "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" leaning. Or maybe that's just what the people wanted so that's what He gave them. After all, God didn't even like the idea of a King, and resisted until the Israelites demanded He give them one. In my book, that says that God doesn't think it's a very good idea for one man or a few men or any men, for that matter, to rule over another, let alone a whole country. I think the right-wing religious fundamentalists overlook that little tidbit of Biblical history.

But God was very explicit when He told the children of Israel, who had always been ruled by priests and holy men, what he expected from the king they would demand. First, God said He would give them a king of His choosing - not of their choosing. (Probably where the kings of old got the "divine right" stuff from, but probably not what God had in mind...) Second, God said the king would not be a foreigner but one of their own (Sorry, Arnold.) Third, God said that the king would not endeavor have alot of women or to make himself rich...yep, that's what He said. Fourth, God said the king should always keep God's laws by putting them in a book and reading them daily, and by respecting and revering God.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very much like any of our current world leaders, and it especially doesn't sound like Dubya and his band of merry fascists.

This stuff can all be found in Deuteronomy 17, but the point is that God didn't really think Kings were such a good idea, He preferred a nation ruled by no one but where grievances were solved by the "priests" of the day, I presume in a non-violent manner. And when He did give in to the Israelites demands for a King, God was very specific about what kind of a man that would be.

God didn't want anyone who would let power go to his head. And to prevent that, God outlined the rules - something those who rule in America today have seemed to conveniently forgotten, if indeed, they ever knew of them.

Back to basics.

I don't believe God ever wants war. Maybe He had enough of it in the Old Testament. Maybe He, as we should, found a better way. All I know is that the God of the New Testament is a "kindler, gentler" God. In the Old Testament the people kept asking for rules and regulations in order to "please" God by obeying them. The trouble was, they couldn't keep all those laws and God knew it. He knew man's nature better than man himself knew it, because God created man (and I don't want to get into the creationism versus evolution argument, because I believe it could be both or neither and it's one of those mysteries that have been lost to the ages and one day we'll know one way or the other. Until then, I'm not seriously going to argue one way or the other. I have a hard time believing we all came from a single cell, though....).

Anyway, for all the laws of the OT, Jesus summed them all us when He said we were to love God first and foremost and love our neighbors as ourselves. (Mt. 12: 30-31). I don't think we think about that much, really, but we ought to.

Jesus also talked a great deal about the poor, the sick, the disabled, the widow, and the orphan. He didn't have alot of good to say about the rich or the religious leaders of His day. In fact, he often "gently" rebuked them and criticized them by saying things like it was better to heal on the Sabbath than to leave someone in need.

So why do the right-wing fundamentalists concentrate only on gay marriage and abortion, when the major theme of God's Word is poverty? If you cut out all the verses in the Bible that have to do with abortion and homosexuality, you'll still have 99.99% of the Bible left. But if you cut out all the verses that talk about poverty, your Bible will be left literally in pieces.

So why don't progressives start putting Jesus on the map for what He REALLY was concerned about and preached about, instead of letting some right-wing nut jobs use smoke and mirrors to take the focus off what really matters to God?

I think that's a good question, and a valid one. After all, the right-wingers have kicked the football of faith onto the playing field, so to speak, and it's up to us progressives to pick up the ball and run with it. If we refuse to learn the rules of the game, how can we expect to play to win?

So I've decided to jump into the game and play to win. I'm a Christian. In another life I used to study the Bible somewhat, and I've probably forgotten more than most fundamentalists will ever know - and I don't say that to be smug; it's that they're just not "getting" it, probably because they're not being taught.

I'm not saying that progressives that don't believe in Christianity should pretend to do so, but I'm sure there are plenty of closet Christians within the progessive movement that have been silent or have been told to "stifle it". I encourage all of you to speak up and out for what you know to be the truth, not as this minority of narrow-minded, fundamentalist right-wingers see it, but for what you know it to be.

It's time.

With A Few Strokes of the Pen

And so it begins. Make no mistake, the radical right-wing extremist agenda is on the march. The question is, will we be able to stop it?

Now that Fuhrer Bush feels he has his majority mandate, the Republican double-speak is in full swing. On NPR today the airwaves were abuzz with Bush's newest budget cuts. I'm sure Frank "sold my soul to the devil for 30 pieces of silver" Luntz had everything to do with Bush's 30-second sound-byte defense -

1. Social programs "sound good" .

This is a frame that says that in reality, social programs aren't good. The problem with this is that most of us know that social programs are not only good, but necessary. But the Bush radical right-wing extremist agenda's credo is that if you can't make it on your own, you don't deserve any help. If you don't work, you don't deserve help. Of course, what is ignored is that you can't work if there are no jobs, if you're sick or disabled, if you're discriminated against because of age, race or gender, etc. In Bushworld there are no excuses. There are no soft edges, no shades of gray. Simply black and white. No matter that many of Bush's elitist "base" (including Bush himself) didn't get where they are today because of their own hard work and efforts. Most of them were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths. Of course, those that subscribe to Bush's agenda have an answer for that, too. If God wanted you to be born one of the privileged elite, you would have been. Therefore you must be paying for the sins of your forefathers and deserve to be punished. Don't forget that Bush and many of his cronies (Ashcroft, for example) are Christian evangelists, that hard-core group of fundamentalist Christians that preach hell-fire-and-brimstone but forget to read what Jesus said about love, tolerance, and helping the poor. One must wonder if they even bother to read their Bibles or just use them to hit others over the head - "weapons for the Lord".

2. When someone said that the poor and disadvantaged would be most hurt by Bush's budget cuts and asked Bush what he thought about the poor asking why he was making these cuts, Bush replied "The poor should be asking the question of whether the program is meeting its goal(s)".

He's running a con. This is a frame that suggests that the programs aren't doing enough to help the poor and are not meeting the goals of the program or the needs of the people who are depending on it, and therefore should be scrapped. What Bush doesn't say is that there is no plan to replace any of these programs with something that does work, except, of course, the admonition to "get out and work for your living and all will be well with you." Again, there are no excuses. Too old? Disabled? Sick? No jobs? Discriminated against? Gay? A woman? Not enough experience? Too much experience? Might need too much healthcare? (And that's another thing Bush thinks Americans can and should do without unless they can pay for it out of their own pockets, but that's another story.) So Bush is trying to get the nation's poor to actually agree with him that these programs aren't meeting their goals because they're not doing enough to help.

Of course not. They're underfunded and the rolls of the poor increase daily.

Make no mistake, the Bush regime's agenda from the very beginning was to repeal any and every law that protects workers, the poor, the disabled, the sick, those that are marginalized, minorities, women, etc. Why? Because they cost Bush and his wealthy elitist buddies money. Which is why one of the first things Bush did was to cut taxes for the wealthiest elite of this country. The next thing he did was allow this country to be attacked from the outside - and I won't equivocate on this issue - so that he could make an excuse to go to war. Never mind that he invaded the wrong country and went after the wrong terrorist. But the point of this post is that by cutting taxes for the very rich and by taking this country to war, Bush and his regime has succeeded in driving up the national debt and depleting our country of not only the surplus that President Clinton left us as his fiscal legacy, but they have also raided the Social Security funds to finance their own agenda. Which brings me back to another point. Social Security is in trouble, not as much as the Bush regime tries to hype, but it is only in need of tweaking because of the robber barons who stole from it to finance a dirty war.

Bush and his merry band of fascists are waging war all right - they are waging war on every poor American in this country. They are working to roll back legislation protecting labor just as they've repealed every environmental protection law in the last 10 years. They are hacking away at overtime laws and eliminating unions through repealing laws that prohibit intimidation by corporate henchmen.

They are working at so underfunding the educational system in this country that only the wealthy will be able to afford a decent education. Already they have reduced funding for universities and pell grants. State grants have been reduced as they've been forced to go into survival mode. Those states with Republican Governors have been quietly adhering to the same kind of onslaught on our freedoms and services to the needy, as well as labor and education.

The Bush agenda includes world domination through "democratization" of second and third world countries. By invading those countries where he can claim a link to terrorism, he will be able to install puppet governments that will of course be U.S. friendly. It's all about oil and trade. Some countries will agree to play by his rules only to avoid invasion, occupation, and annihilation. Iraq is just practice, and it is merely the tip of the iceberg.

In Bush World, which is his aim, make no mistake, there will be no freedom as most of us interpret it. Even now, in cities where Bush makes appearances, those that disagree with him or seek to expose his agenda are banned from attending. In some cities, protesters have been arrested for carrying signs against the war. In all cities where he or his cronies appear there are "free speech zones", usually in areas that are blocks, even miles, away from the main event. The point is to isolate anyone who disagrees with the mighty Bush. Only those who agree with his agenda are allowed to attend his staged appearances. So the next time you see Bush on TV, surrounded by smiling, clapping and laughing people, many of them women (he must make it look like women agree with his schtick), just remember that these people have been hand-picked, literally. And that those that disagree weren't even allowed within 1-3 miles of Bush, let alone in the same building or room. It isn't that they're worried someone will get in with a weapon, because everybody is thoroughly searched - no, what they are most concerned with is that no one heckles, frowns, makes a face, or even looks like he/she disagrees.

And who does this remind you of? Well, I can tell you who it reminds me of: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and the AntiChrist. Take your pick, no matter which you choose, we lose. We lose as individuals, as families, as citizens, as a society, as human beings.

In Bush World there is chaos. There is mass poverty, and people die everyday from starvation, exposure and disease. But, all is not lost.... Because it is inconvenient for the deserving wealthy to have to see this, poverty has been declared illegal. Privately owned prisons have been built and those who "will not" pay their debts are sent there. There are no "excuses". They provide much of the work that low-income people used to perform - they are the ones who pick up our highways, parks, and public lands. They mow the grass and take out the trash. They work in state laundries and make things like license plates. Some of them are trained to do such menial work as planting flowers and mowing the grass for some of the more benevolent wealthy elite who feel sorry for them. It works out well for them, too, of course, because the labor is cheap. The wealthy are so grateful that they actually contribute to these privatized "debtors' camps".

In Bush World those who are sick, disabled, elderly, poor, etc., now live in privately owned "Camps for the Poor, Sick & Disabled". No one visits these camps much, and each camp has their own private cemetary - for convenience, of course. It saves the state so much money because they don't have to bury the poor for free. Of course, most people are cremated - it's cheaper and so that's the way to go. It also saves space. There are doctors and nurses to take care of the poor. Of course, these are privately-owned camps, so there really is not much regulation - states have pretty much done away with all that paperwork. Not much is known about how these people make enough money to keep these places going, but there is some speculation. No one knows how many people die or what kind of medical care they get, but that's none of our business. Better to not ask too many questions.

In Bush World there has also been a resurgence of Orphanages. Parents that are not able to take care of their children are "encouraged" to give them away, and if they refuse or are arrested for public begging or loitering, or found guilty of establishing an "illegal or fraudulent residence", such as in a car, abandoned building, subways, etc., they are forced to give up their children anyway. These laws are based on the Texas statutes, where many unsuspecting parents have lost custody of their children in the past. Of course, these children are much better off. Many of the upper class who either cannot have children or who don't want to ruin their figures can freely adopt these children. Also, since everyone must learn the moral lesson of productivity, corporate farms (there are no more family farms - they lost their "hand-outs in Bush's second term and all farms were eventually bought out by corporations) are allowed to "foster" some of these children, who are in turn taught how to work on the farm and learn what it means to be a responsible citizen. Of course, these children don't receive an education or pay (although they do receive room and board - again, privately regulated) but that is due to their lower class status, as it has been determined that the government is not obligated to provide an education for any citizen.

Of course, there is always the National Service. Some children, those that the government deems fit, can join the National Service once they are 14 years of age. These lucky boys and girls are able to travel all over the world enforcing the global domination by the U.S. that was begun in Bush's second term of office. Of course, there are many casualties, and the life of a soldier is hard. The pay is low and there isn't enough food or armor, guns or ammunition, but it's better than living in the Debtors' Camps. And once a child turns 14, he or she must leave the Orphanage, as they are now considered adults and must work to pay their way. If they can't get work on the Corporate Farms or in the Corporate Factories, either here or in U.S. holdings outside of the country, then they must either join the National Service or face Debtor Camp. Since they cannot afford an education, most jobs are off-limits to them. Of course, those responsible enough to have been born into wealthy families do not have to worry about all of this, as their parents have been responsible and have either earned or inherited wealth and are therefore able to properly take care of their children, as are all "good" parents.

In Bush World, the only people who are educated are the ones who can afford to go to school. There are no more government subsidies for education. The voucher system works well for the wealthier families, although the poor families soon found out that for them the voucher wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, since it only paid a fraction of the cost of tuition and they couldn't afford to make up for the rest. But by that time funding for public education had been cut so much that most schools had closed, and so there was really no alternative. It did tend to create a kind of "slave society", but again, in Bush World, that is just the natural order of things. Those that are superior will survive.

You think some or all of this is far-fetched? Think again. Most of this is just a few pen strokes away from becoming reality. We have a Republican dominated Congress. Bush has already changed the Constitution and he wants to do it again. What he wants is what he gets. Period. What will we do when it is too late to speak up? Consider the changes to our society in the last four years. Is it really so hard to imagine what will happen during the next four? Already they are grooming Arnold to become President. How do you think they will be able to do that, since our Constitution expressly forbids a foreign-born individual to become President? Why, with a few strokes of the pen, of course.